Final EIS Appendix 27 

APPENDIX 27—RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

APPENDIX 27—RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS..........................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................2

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .........................................................................................................................................3

General/Miscellaneous.........................................................................................................................................4

Policy/NEPA......................................................................................................................................................46

Maps...................................................................................................................................................................66

Air Quality .........................................................................................................................................................68

Cultural Resources...........................................................................................................................................117

Forestry ............................................................................................................................................................140

Lands and Realty..............................................................................................................................................145

Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................................................164

Minerals ...........................................................................................................................................................191

Paleontology, Natural History..........................................................................................................................359

Recreation and Visitor Services.......................................................................................................................360

Socioeconomics................................................................................................................................................364

Soils..................................................................................................................................................................405

Transportation, Access, and Travel Management ............................................................................................412

Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................................427

Visual Resources..............................................................................................................................................450

Watershed and Water Quality ..........................................................................................................................462

Wildland Fire and Fuels...................................................................................................................................534

Wildlife and Fish Habitat.................................................................................................................................537

Special Management Areas (SMAs)................................................................................................................666

Cumulative Impacts .........................................................................................................................................722

Appendices.......................................................................................................................................................734

Pinedale RMP A27-1 
Appendix 27 Final EIS 

INTRODUCTION

This appendix includes public comments and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) responses on the draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Pinedale Resource Management Plan (RMP). BLM 

published the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Pinedale Draft RMP EIS for public review and 

comment in the Federal Register on February 16, 2007. This notice initiated the 90-day public comment 

period. At the request of the public, the comment period was subsequently extended to 120 days, which 

concluded on June 18, 2007. 

A total of 99,836 letters were received: 95,869 were sent by e-mail, 85 were submitted on the BLM 

project website, and 3,882 were submitted in hard copy or sent by mail. Comments received at public 

hearings were considered written comments based on the official public transcript. Of the 99,836 letters 

received, 95,302 of them were identified as being form letters. Form letters are described as letters 

containing identical text submitted by more than five individuals. 

BLM published a supplemental NOA regarding proposed areas of critical environmental concern 

(ACECs) that were not included in the NOA for the Pinedale draft RMP EIS. This initiated a 60-day 

public comment period, which concluded on April 21, 2008. A total of 5 letters were received. Two of the 

letters were not substantive to the intent of the additional comment period. One letter only restated earlier 

comments submitted on the RMP draft EIS. The two remaining letters contained substantive comments as 

well as some comments that were outside the scope of the additional comment period. In some cases, 

BLM has chosen to respond to specific nonsubstantive comments to clarify for the reader the rationale 

behind management actions in the Proposed Plan. 

In response to ACEC-specific comments, BLM has included the evaluation of relevance and importance 

criteria for proposed ACECs in Appendix 4 of the proposed RMP and final EIS. All relevance and 

importance forms are included in the Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria for Existing and 

Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern on the Pinedale RMP website. 

According to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), BLM is required to identify and formally 

respond to all substantive public comments. On the basis of the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ) regulations, a substantive comment does one or more of the following: 

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the environmental impact 

statement 

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of environmental analysis as presented 

• Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the draft EIS that meet the purpose 

and need of the proposed action and addresses significant issues 

• Causes changes or revisions in the proposal 

Nonsubstantive comments simply state a position in favor of, or against, an alternative; merely agree or 

disagree with BLM policy; or otherwise express an unsupported personal preference or opinion. 

BLM is required to respond only to substantive comments to fully inform the public of concerns raised. 

For this proposed RMP and final EIS comment response appendix, BLM has provided responses to all 

substantive public concerns identified during comment analysis. Responses to substantive comments are 

more extensive, complete, and often offer an explanation of why a comment may or may not have 

resulted in a change to the proposed RMP and final EIS. 

A27-2 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27 

BLM read all public response letters in their entirety and identified comments that related to a particular 

concern or resource consideration or that proposed management actions. Every effort was made to keep 

each comment within a letter as a standalone comment. BLM looked not only for each action or change 

requested by the public, but also for any supporting information to capture the comment in its entirety. In 

doing so, paragraphs within a comment letter may have been divided into several comments because of 

multiple comments being presented or, alternatively, sections of a letter may have been combined to form 

one coherent statement. 

Once a comment was identified, BLM assigned it to a category associated with the overall premise of the 

comment. A coding structure served as a tool to sort comments into logical groups by topics. In this case, 

the coding structure was organized to mirror the sections of the draft RMP EIS; some additional 

categories were added that included additional classification of comments. 

A database was used to organize and compile the large number of comments received on the draft RMP 

EIS. Comments that were received via web or e-mail were automatically entered in the database. The 

coding of these letters was also done from the database. Comments identified in hard copy letters and 

from public hearing transcripts were entered verbatim into the project database. The content analysis 

process also involved identifying all form letters. The initial course of action in this step was conducted 

using the database to filter all web-based and e-mail comments to identify all letters containing identical 

text. Once a form letter was identified, it was given an identification number, copied, and coded. If a hard 

copy letter matched a form letter, it was given the same identification number. If a form letter included 

any original comments, the comments were treated as a unique comment, coded, and entered into the 

database. 

It is important to note that during the process of identifying concerns, all comments were treated equally. 

The comments were not weighted by organizational affiliation or status of respondents, and the number of 

duplicate comments did not add more bias to one comment than another. The process was not one of 

counting votes and no effort was made to tabulate the exact number of people for, or against, any given 

aspect of the draft RMP EIS. Rather, emphasis was placed on the content of a comment. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

BLM received multiple comment letters on the RMP/DEIS that shared similar issues and content. For 

these comments, more general responses, called general comment responses (GCRs), were written to 

address the similar issues and content represented. In the case of identical or similar comments, each 

response is preceded by the text of two or three example comments to represent the full range of an issue. 

These generic comments and associated responses are located at the beginning of the applicable resource 

section. In the case of unique comments, each response is preceded by the submitted comment. 

As previously stated, the comments are organized according to the outline of the Proposed RMP and Final 

EIS and in no way indicate the significance of any statement. BLM’s response to the public concern 

follows each comment. 

Pinedale RMP A27-3 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

General/Miscellaneous 

General Comment Responses: No GCRs are associated with this category.

Mitigation 

Comment: Item: Page 2-13, Section 2.3.16, Compensation (Offsite) Mitigation: Comment - When offsite 

mitigation is being considered as a design feature of the applicant’s submission, BLM’s NEPA analysis 

should: 1) evaluate the need for offsite mitigation, 2) consider the effectiveness of offsite mitigation in 

reducing, resolving, or eliminating impacts of the proposed project(s), and 3) comparatively analyze the 

proposal with and without the offsite mitigation. We would also offer that BP has engaged the services of 

The Nature Conservancy to establish scientific methodologies to determine where the best areas for 

offsite mitigation could be applied. This process was recently completed for the Jonah Field EIS 

following issuance of the Record of Decision. It is recommended a statement be included in the FEIS 

stating that compensation (offsite) mitigation be based upon a science based methodology. 

Response: While it is correct that the NEPA analysis should cover these items, it is not an RMP decision 

to determine this. NEPA analysis for each site-specific project proposal will be tailored to the proposal 

and the resources potentially impacted by it. 

Comment: Page 2-13 Compensation (Offsite) Mitigation Compensatory or offsite mitigation proposed by 

oil and gas or other operators could be considered and analyzed in future environmental documents as 

possible mitigation for proposed activities within the planning area. Proposed offsite mitigation would be 

described and analyzed for effectiveness in detail on a project-specific basis. Planning for offsite 

mitigation would be performed in coordination with local government agencies. 

An example of an instance where compensation or offsite mitigation could be utilized would be oil and 

gas field developments where wildlife habitat impacts cannot be satisfactorily mitigated through onsite 

measures. Compensation mitigation would be used as a tool to address loss of habitat effectiveness when 

reclamation, best management practices (BMP), and onsite mitigation measures are not adequate to 

mitigate the impacts of proposed actions. Compensation mitigation would be used as a last choice when 

developing mitigation measures.

Comment–These provisions in the DRMP seem consistent with BLM policy. It is BLM policy that offsite 

mitigation must be on a voluntary basis: however, the implication is that approval will be denied without 

it. When offsite mitigation is being considered as a design feature of the applicant’s submission, BLM’s 

NEPA analysis should: 1) evaluate the need for offsite mitigation, 2) consider the effectiveness of offsite 

mitigation in reducing, resolving, or eliminating impacts of the proposed project(s), and 3) comparatively 

analyze the proposal with and without the offsite mitigation. 

Response: The Compensation (offsite) Mitigation discussion on page 2-13 of the draft EIS, neither 

implies nor states that projects would be approved or denied on the basis of compensation (offsite) 

mitigation. Projects would be evaluated on all aspects of the proposal, the anticipated impacts, and the 

mitigation of those impacts; whether the mitigation be onsite operator committed measures, BLM 

required mitigation, or operator committed offsite measures. The identified processes on page 2-13 and 

continuing onto page 2-14 of the draft EIS do prescribe measures to evaluate the need for offsite 

mitigation, to consider the anticipated effectiveness of offsite mitigation, and to analyze the proposed 

project with and without offsite mitigation.

Comment: Page Number & Issue: 2-13, 2.3.16: “An example of an instance where compensation or 

offsite mitigation could be utilized would be oil and gas field developments where wildlife habitat 

A27-4 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

impacts cannot be satisfactorily mitigated through onsite measures. Compensation mitigation would be 

used as a tool to address loss of habitat effectiveness when reclamation, best management practices 

(BMP), and onsite mitigation measures are not adequate to mitigate the impacts of proposed actions.” 

Recommendations: Include current BMP agreements and allow for future BMP agreements with U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Response: BLM will comply with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requirements for 

threatened and endangered (T&E) and sensitive species management.

Comment: Based on our experience with development in the past decade in the Northern Rockies we 

firmly support having a mitigation approach that is based on science, prior evaluation of the resources that 

might be affected, and is viewed as a process for the life of the development. No such approaches are 

proposed in the RMP, nor have they been used to date in the Resource Management Area. There are no 

transparent methods presented by which BLM will attempt to replace lost public values in the trade-offs 

to be done in onsite vs off-site mitigation. Without a science-based process we do not see how the broader 

public interest can be protected during even wider geographic development of the area.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation and 

the methods to be used must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. The 

action alternatives contemplate the establishment of working groups intended to integrate the decision, 

implementation, mitigation, evaluation, and response processes.

Comment: Because this RMP is performance-based, it is critical that the BLM provide assurances that 

the process will work as it is contemplated in the document and as it was understood by state cooperators. 

With a majority of the decisions set to be decided in the future, it is critical that there be stringent 

sideboards placed in this document relative to performance objectives, monitoring, adaptive management, 

reclamation and mitigation and that cooperators be involved throughout the life of the RMP in these 

processes. 

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation and 

the methods to be used must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. The 

action alternatives contemplate the establishment of working groups intended to integrate the decision, 

implementation, mitigation, evaluation, and response process.

Comment: The PRMP is a performance-based plan and we support the adaptive management 

components associated with such a title. The PRMP needs to thoroughly describe the framework that the 

performance-based approach will function, as management decisions are therefore developed in the future 

based on monitoring, and are not described within the PRMP. 

Performance objectives, monitoring, adaptive management and mitigation are issues needing addressed 

and described in the performance-based process so that the WDA is assured to remain active in the 

planning process. Without knowledge of the PFO performance-based planning process, it is impossible 

for us to efficiency and effectively contribute.

Response: The RMP provides the objectives for management and allocates uses that would be allowed in 

particular areas. Specific mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive measures would be dependent on sitespecific projects or proposals and would be determined during the project approval process.

Pinedale RMP A27-5 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

Comment: The DEIS only briefly describes qualitative effects and does not discuss the mitigation of 

negative effects.

Response: The draft EIS used the best available data to assess the impacts of the alternatives. In areas 

where BLM has authority to perform or require mitigation, the mitigations were included in the impact 

analyses.

Comment: Page 2—113 Section 2.5.5 indicates performance-based mitigations to implement adaptive 

management principles.... However, performance based mitigation must be monitored at all times and 

properly inspected to make sure that threshold limits outlined in the performance parameters are adhered 

to and never exceeded. The EIS should have detailed plan on how the performance based mitigation 

would occur, who monitors it, what are the performance parameters for all categories of environmental 

impacts (Soil erosion, vegetation reclamation, etc), what are the kinds of reporting that would be done for 

each category. The EIS should indicate who does the performance based inspection and monitoring, an 

independent consultant or does the BLM do this.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. The 

final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project development scale, 

where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale. 

Comment: There should be a process built into the RMP for a transparent approach to weighing and 

balancing resource values lost against onsite and offsite replacement. 

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. The 

merits of onsite and offsite mitigation must be analyzed in regard to a specific project.

Comment: Unfortunately with the Pinedale Draft RMP, the BLM has not drawn on its own significant 

experience with adaptive management techniques to craft a credible set of operating standards and 

mitigation guidelines. BLM has recently incorporated adaptive management into land management plans 

including the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan (JMH CAP) and EIS prepared by the Rawlins 

(WY) Field Office and the Little Snake Resource Management Plan (LS RMP) and EIS prepared by the 

Little Snake (CO) Field Office. The JMH CAP includes a well-thought out monitoring program, which 

includes specific management indicators and labeled trigger points that are not to be violated (see: JMH 

CAP Final EIS, Appendix A17-12 through A17-14). The LS RMP thoughtfully discusses use of the 

adaptive management process at both the system level and the project level and the steps necessary for 

successful implementation and follow-through (see LS RMP Draft EIS, Appendix M). Such discussion is 

notably absent from the Pinedale Draft RMP. Recommendation: If BLM is to include adaptive 

management techniques for the Pinedale RMP, it must incorporate them in the final ROD and in a way 

that explicitly describes all of the elements necessary for successful implementation and follow-through 

necessary to meet the stated resource goals. Anything less is an unacceptable and improper use of 

adaptive management.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. 

A27-6 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

The action alternatives contemplate the establishment of working groups intended to integrate the 

decision, implementation, mitigation, evaluation, and response processes. The final EIS has been changed 

to apply performance-based management to the project development scale, where it is most appropriate, 

not the land use planning scale.

Comment: The proper implementation process of the performance-based process must be assured. The 

FEIS and eventual ROD must explicitly outline a required process for land allocation changes, for 

monitoring and mitigation needs, and specifically for involvement of state agencies in implementation of 

the plan.

Response: Land allocation changes can only be achieved through amendment of the RMP, with 

appropriate accompanying NEPA analysis. It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP 

level, because the RMP will not directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of 

onsite and offsite mitigation, and the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where 

specific impacts can be predicted. The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based 

management to the project development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning 

scale. See the text in Section 2.3.17 of the draft EIS, Activity Plan Working Groups, for information on 

the involvement of state agencies and other potential cooperators in future site-specific project planning.

Comment: Chapter 2 Page 13 Commentor WGFD Section Headed, Compensation (offsite) Mitigation 

“Compensation mitigation would be used as a tool to address loss of habitat effectiveness when 

reclamation, best management practices (BMP) and onsite mitigation measures are not adequate to 

mitigate the impacts of proposed actions.” Under performance-based planning, it is necessary to describe 

how this will be measured, the triggers that will be used to initiate order of use of mitigation methods, and 

how the process of consultation with affected agencies will be implemented. We recommend wildlife 

trends be used to measure habitat effectiveness and reclamation success.

Response: The appropriate types and amount of mitigation to be used would be determined at the projectspecific level, such as is being done for the Pinedale Anticline Supplemental EIS. It is not possible to 

design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not directly authorize any on-theground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and the methods to be used, must 

be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. The final EIS has been changed to 

apply performance-based management to the project development scale, where it is most appropriate, not 

the land use planning scale.

Comment: A floating adaptive management approach coupled with non-specific performance-based 

objectives is a recipe for disaster-again. It is bad enough that this ineffective approach to monitoring and 

mitigation has been implemented in project-specific decisions. To embrace such an approach in a 

management plan with no set objectives, no defined criteria, not even specified outcomes, is an abdication 

of authority and a violation of NEPA and FLPMA. In essence, there is no monitoring or mitigation plan 

in the DEIS.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. 

Monitoring is addressed in Appendix 11, which is the monitoring and evaluation appendix. The final EIS 

has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project development scale, where it is 

most appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: 2. In the DEIS, the Bureau emphasizes the importance of monitoring under a “performancebased” approach, stating “monitoring would ensure that adaptive management principles are adhered to 

Pinedale RMP A27-7 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

and that necessary changes to operating standards can be made in a timely and efficient manner.” The 

Service encourages the Bureau to ensure that intensive monitoring of the effectiveness of operating 

standards is employed during the life of the Pinedale RMP. 

Response: To assess the impacts of the alternatives, it must be assumed that implementation of the 

alternatives would be carried out. It is not possible to predict the actual availability of funding and 

personnel to carry out implementation; however, BLM intends to implement the plan as written.

Comment: EPA recommends the Final EIS include a detailed adaptive management strategy, framework, 

measurable indicators and monitoring plan.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. 

Appendix 11 includes indicators for monitoring. 

Comment: BLM’s Preferred Alternative includes a series of proposed performance-based objectives and 

standards are presented in Appendix 3 of the Draft EIS. Adaptive management and performance-based 

objectives can be important tools in mitigating and minimizing impacts to the environment. However for 

these tools to be effective, it is important that the management strategy and framework, measures, 

monitoring, and funding be clearly identified at the onset. To ensure that these standards and BLM’s 

management goals for the resource area are being met, EPA recommends this section be expanded to 

include: - Measures. Each outcome should be linked to a clear and measurable indicator. For example, 

how will BLM monitor soil and watershed impacts? What will the indicators be and at what level is the 

impact considered detrimental? The Final EIS should describe the consequences and action triggers 

should an objective fail to be met. - A monitoring timeframe. In order to identify whether detrimental 

Impacts are occurring and whether adaptive management is necessary, a monitoring timeframe and 

strategy should be determined. This would include when the monitoring will occur, how often, and by 

whom. As BLM indicates in Appendix 3, “Monitoring would ensure that adaptive management principles 

are adhered to and that necessary changes to operating standards can be made in a timely and efficient 

manner.” - Funding. EPA believes that the funding to implement the performance-based objectives is 

critical. - Stakeholder Involvement. EPA recommends the Final EIS include how BLM will document the 

progress and report to stakeholders.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. The 

action alternatives contemplate the establishment of working groups intended to integrate the decision, 

implementation, mitigation, evaluation, and response process. The final EIS has been changed to apply 

performance-based management to the project development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the 

land use planning scale. 

Comment: The DEIS states, “To address the changing conditions and provide management flexibility 

that uses best management practices (BMP), the Pinedale Field Office (PFO) conducts monitoring and 

evaluation, which measures the effectiveness of existing actions through monitoring and application of 

new scientific research. Monitoring and evaluation analyzes the current resource conditions as a result of 

implemented actions and identifies and recommends alternatives or modified actions, as necessary, to 

reach established objectives and goals. This process provides the optimum means to check the 

effectiveness of management actions.” Comment: It is important that monitoring and evaluation be done 

in cooperation with other government and private partners so that it can be done economically and meet 

multiple needs. We have found, however, that when the data collected from this monitoring is submitted 

A27-8 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

to the respective agency for analysis, the process falls apart. BLM is under-staffed and does not have the 

manpower to perform the analysis. With the additional staff and manpower allocated to the Pinedale Field 

Office, this problem should be eliminated. Monitoring data should be appropriately analyzed and the 

results should be made available to industry on a regular basis. Also, information must be provided 

regarding results from past monitoring and how BLM will use that data to help determine the parameters 

of future monitoring.

Response: In order to assess the impacts of the alternatives, it must be assumed that implementation of 

the alternatives would be carried out. It is not possible to predict the actual availability of funding and 

personnel to carry out implementation; however, BLM intends to implement the plan as written.

Comment: Item: Page 2-14, Section 2.3-17, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Activity Plan Working 

Groups Comment: BLM should: • Use the most practical and cost effective means to acquire data where 

gaps exist • Use cooperative ventures between federal, local, and state agencies and companies • BLM 

should publish/make available all data collected under these plans unless collected voluntarily by 

companies and provided to BLM for internal use only. • Establish data collection priorities, standards and 

objectives • Review the data on a regular basis and make changes in management strategy based upon the 

results of the monitoring efforts. 

Response: This comment is outside the scope of the RMP.

Comment: Item: Page A3-4, Appendix 3, Performance-Based Stipulations and Mitigation Comment:

This section discusses adaptive management and the role of management, research and monitoring. 

Operators currently monitor various resources and submit that information to the BLM. The BLM, 

however, is under staffed and cannot always analyze that data. For adaptive management to be successful, 

the data must be analyzed and this should be stated in the FEIS. 

Response: In order to assess the impacts of the alternatives, it must be assumed that implementation of 

the alternatives would be carried out. It is not possible to predict the actual availability of funding and 

personnel to carry out implementation; however, BLM intends to implement the plan as written.

Comment: The BLM’s preference for so-called “performance-based management” and adaptive 

management gives no indication of when a “performance” would be deemed successful. The agency is on 

record refusing to use tools available to prevent the loss of half the Pinedale Anticline mule deer herds. 

We urge the BLM to include specifics on management objectives, intended outcomes, measures of 

success, monitoring timeframes, costs and funding mechanisms, personnel needs, and mitigation triggers 

with clear consequences should an objective fail to be met. Also, the RMP should describe how progress 

will be documented and reported to various stakeholders, including the American public. 

Response: Performance would be determined successful when the RMP management objective is met. It 

is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not directly authorize 

any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and the methods to be 

used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. The final EIS has been 

changed to apply performance-based management to the project development scale, where it is most 

appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: Outcome based or performance based management, as described in this document, comes 

with no indication of a time line and at what point in time the outcome will be evaluated and declared 

successful. The outcome should come in five years -- could come in five years or 75 years. None of us 

here today may ever see success. BLM provides us with no implementation plan to explain how all these 

programs will be carried out.

Pinedale RMP A27-9 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, 

appropriate timeframes, and the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific 

impacts can be predicted. The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the 

project development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: With mitigation, the biggest buzz word in the western U.S., and with one Pinedale BLM 

interagency mitigation office already operating and another proposed, the public should expect to see a 

comprehensive mitigation plan outlining -- outlined with clear objectives, long-term, operator-assisted 

funding mechanisms and dedicated personnel for both off-site and on-site mitigation.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted.

Comment: The proposed activity plan working groups cannot function without these plans in place and 

cannot assess future options without both baseline and data and analysis. Inventory and monitoring data 

must be analyzed regularly and transparent recording be made available to the public in one publicly 

accessible data base with inter-disciplinary structure and capabilities.

Response: This suggestion is outside the scope of the RMP. 

Comment: Outcome based or performance based management as described in this document comes with 

no indication of a time line, and at what point in time the outcome will be evaluated and declared 

successful. The outcome would come in five years or 7 years. None of us here today may even see 

success.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, 

appropriate timeframes, and the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific 

impacts can be predicted. The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the 

project development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: The BLM is relying heavily in BMPs and other proposed mitigation to claim the agency can 

avoid or correct any environmental damage caused by implementing activities under the new RMP. The 

failure to present this mitigation an for public review and comment is therefore a fatal flaw in the NEPA 

process. Without undergoing scrutiny by citizens, scientists and other expert agencies, there is no 

assurance the BLM’s mitigation is appropriate, workable, or sufficient to prevent or correct 

environmental harm. For these reasons, I am requesting that BLM prepare a revised or supplemental Draft 

EIS to fully disclose all management direction for the new RMP and each alternative evaluated in the EIS. 

This new DEIS should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with 40 C.F.R. §§ 

1502.9(a) and 1503.1.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted.

Comment: Although BLM is relying heavily on BMPs and other proposed mitigation for the new RMP, 

the DEIS does not demonstrate that any of these measures would be effective at preventing or correcting 

environmental harm. This includes the water quality direction. For example, to meet Objective 3 of 

Alternative 4 – “Control water runoff ... and maintain soil erosion at appropriate rates for natural 

A27-10 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

conditions” - BLM proposes the following actions: a. “BMPs would be applied to mitigate surface 

disturbance and control non-point source erosion (Appendix 5).” * * * f. “Where threats to Class I waters 

are identified from federal lands or management actions... BMPs that address the threat would be 

implemented on all contributing federal lands.” g. “Salt loading in the Colorado River System would be 

controlled by applying BMPs on all highly erodible soils potentially affected by management activities.” 

DEIS at 2-141. Beyond the failure to actually describe these mitigation measures, the RMP DEIS 

provides no basis for concluding the measures would actually be effective at preventing or correcting the 

impacts in question. The same is true of other proposed management direction. Concerning 

bioremediation, for instance, there is no evidence this measure has been proven to work on spills in the 

past - on the types of chemicals (e.g., benzene) that may contaminate waters in the PRA. Courts have 

repeatedly held that where a federal agency relies on mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential 

environmental impacts, the agency must demonstrate the measures would be effective. See, e.g., 

LaFlamme v. F.E.R. C., 842 F.2d 1063, 1071 (9th Cir. 1988) citing Jones v. Gordon, 792 F.2d 821, 829 

(9th Cir. 1986) (NEPA document must explain how mitigation measures will mitigate impacts); 

Response: The effectiveness of individual BMPs would have to be determined at the project 

implementation stage. Appendices 3 and 5 include BMPs that may be appropriate to implement, 

depending on the timing, size, location, and other characteristics of each particular proposed project.

Comment: To comport with these requirements, I am asking BLM to fully describe any proposed 

mitigation measures and demonstrate why they would be effective. This should include a convincing 

statement of reasons for why mitigation will prevent or reduce impacts, with citations to peer-reviewed 

studies and, where available, analytical data supporting the proposed mitigation measures. 40 C.F.R. § 

1502.24. It would also be appropriate to explain the conditions under which proposed mitigation could 

fail and the consequences that would result during such failure. As an example, BLM should describe the 

various BMPs designed to address salt loading from highly erodible soils, cite studies showing these 

measures are effective at controlling salt loading, and explain why no measures are needed to prevent salt 

loading from other soils.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include the following: The number of corrective actions - prompted by 

“action triggers” in the monitoring plan - that BLM carries out each year.

Response: This suggestion is outside the scope of the RMP.

Comment: To correct these errors, I am asking BLM to prepare a revised or supplemental Draft EIS 

presenting alternative management direction including the strongest practicable mitigation measures. This 

should include evaluation of mitigation measures the BLM may feel are outside the agency’s jurisdiction 

(e.g., water conservation measures, requiring disclosure of chemicals in drilling and fracing fluids, 

regulating NORM, etc.). 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(c). In particular, I am asking to develop alternatives that 

contain management direction and mitigation that addresses all of the issues discussed in these comments, 

both in previous pages and in the next chapter where I outline other management directives I feel axe 

needed for the PRA. If BLM believes any particular measure (goals, management directives, mitigation, 

or monitoring) I have proposed would not be practicable, please (i) explain why the agency believes that 

measure is not practicable, citing the sources and authorities that support the agency’s position, 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1502.24, and (ii) develop a refined measure, as close as possible to the measure I have proposed, which 

the agency believes is practicable. To comport with NEPA’s purpose, the RMP EIS should not only 

Pinedale RMP A27-11 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

evaluate alternatives based on the strongest possible set of management direction, the agency should 

select an alternative that is based on this direction.

Response: BLM analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives in the draft EIS and provided an appropriate 

analysis of the potential impacts of those alternatives. No supplemental document is necessary.

Comment: Beyond rigorously exploring alternative mitigation measures, an EIS must also include 

discussions of the (i) “energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and 

mitigation measures,” (ii) “natural or depletable resource requirements and conservation potential of 

various alternatives and mitigation measures,” and (iii) “the reuse and conservation potential of various 

alternatives and mitigation measures.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(e), (f) and (g). The DEIS does not include 

such discussions.

Response: NEPA and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) do not require that this information appear 

in discrete sections with these headings. To the extent possible, this information is included in the draft 

EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 2-151, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Objective 6 Collaborate with state and local 

governments to identify areas for off-site or compensatory mitigation in accordance with BLM guidance, 

IM 2005-69.

Response: BLM guidance and Instruction Memoranda (IMs) can change over time. It would be unwise to 

tie the RMP to a specific IM that could expire. It is also not necessary to restate policy in the RMP.

Comment: PAGE: G-13 CHANGE: MITIGATION - A method or process by which impacts from 

actions may be avoided, minimized, rectifying, reduced or eliminated over time, or compensated for by 

providing substitute resources or environments. [made less injurious to the environment through 

appropriate protective measures.](STRIKEOUT) Also called mitigative measure. EXPLANATION: 

Definition needs to be revised to identify the five mitigation measures providing for by CEQ rules. 40 

C.F.R. § 1508.20.

Response: The five mitigation categories at 40 CFR 1508.20 are: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by 

not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or 

magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or 

restoring the affected environment; (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and 

maintenance operations during the life of the action’ (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or 

providing substitute resources or environments. BLM contends that the definition provided captures the 

essence of 40 CFR 1508.20 as well as 40 CFR 1500.2(e). 

Comment: PAGE: G-13 CHANGE: On-site. [To mitigate a disturbance or removal of a resources such as 

a wetland, where the resource originally occurred.](STRIKEOUT) Mitigation of the actual area affected 

by the action causing the impact, such as the reclamation of an abandoned well pad. Off-site. [To mitigate 

a disturbance or removal of a resources such as a wetland, in an area removed from the original 

site.](STRIKEOUT) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments in an area immediately adjacent to the impacted area or within the same general geographic 

area. EXPLANATION: Definition must conform to bureau-wide definitions adopted in IM No. 2005-069 

which is still in effect and binding on BLM.

Response: IM 2005-069 does not define offsite mitigation. However, onsite and compensatory mitigation 

are defined as follows: compensatory mitigation, as defined by CEQ, means compensating for the impact 

by replacement or by providing substitute resources or environments. The offsite mitigation can be 

A27-12 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

immediately adjacent to the area impacted, or it may also be located anywhere in the same general 

geographic area. It does not have to be juxtaposed. Onsite mitigation is mitigation of the actual area 

affected by the action causing the impact. For example, the reclamation of an abandoned well pad is 

onsite mitigation; whereas compensatory mitigation in another area to offset the loss of vegetation during 

the life of that same well pad is defined as offsite mitigation. The definitions provided in the text capture 

the essence and add clarity to those definitions from IM 2005-069.

Oil and Gas 

Comment: It is far easier to think first and drill later, than it is the reverse. The BLM is here to make sure 

that our lands are protected from overdrilling, and overdevelopment. The BLM needs to stay free from the 

influence and pressure of the oil lobbyists who want nothing more than to drill, drill, drill. Our lands are 

not here to be a playground for the oil and gas industry. Someone must think of what is BEST for our 

lands. I, for one, am hopeful that the BLM will think of the animals, trees, and environment when making 

such an important decision. Please don’t let me down.

Response: Oil and gas leaseholders have rights BLM is bound to honor. BLM does not have the authority 

to prohibit drilling in areas where valid leases exist.

Comment: I’m worried about actions including drilling in wilderness areas. Alternative 3 seems like a 

possibility to protect these areas. Therefore, I would urge this to be a consideration as the BLM considers 

a management plan for the Upper Green River Valley. The other three alternatives under consideration 

would allow rapid expansion of natural gas drilling in the region. I’m worried that this would cause 

irreversible damage to the area Please pursue Alternative 3, the plan that would protect the Upper Green’s 

most sensitive lands, or some other plan not yet put forward that would work to protect the area.

Response: No Congressionally designated wilderness areas are included within the planning area. No oil 

and gas leasing or development would be allowed in the two wilderness study areas (WSAs) that are 

located within the planning area. There would be little difference in the amount of oil and gas drilling 

under any alternative, including Alternative 3, because of the areas that are currently under lease and the 

development already occurring in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline fields.

Comment: PAGE: 2-47 SECTION: 2.5.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Lands covered in the 

DEIS and depicted as the planning area include those that may affect or be affected by the management 

on the BLM administered land. However, the planning decisions in the RMP will apply only to the BLMadministered public lands and federal mineral estate in the planning area. No RMP decisions will be made 

on non-federal land surface or mineral estate, on federal lands administered by other federal agencies or 

the federal mineral estate underlying federal lands administered by other federal agencies. 

EXPLANATION: This ¶ is quoted from Appendix B of the MSA, January 2003. The oil and gas 

management discussion does not identify or distinguish the areas from private lands. This fails to disclose 

that the areas labeled Minimally developed or large block NSOs are on private land as well. This is also 

true for the administratively unavailable. 

Response: This information is included in Chapter 1 of the draft EIS. Decisions made in the RMP apply 

only to BLM-administered surface lands and mineral estate.

Comment: I just wanted to add - If you do decide to allow more drilling, I think that it should be done by 

the army corps of engineers, or some other government group, and then sold for the usual obscene profit, 

but with the money going directly into the national coffers. I’m not saying that the government should 

have its own filling stations, only that it be sold by the barrel to the highest bidder. ---

Pinedale RMP A27-13 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

Response: It is not within the authority of BLM to take lease rights from current leaseholders and transfer 

them to another entity such as the Army Corps of Engineers.

Comment: I am writing regarding the proposed drilling for the Pinedale, WY area. To sacrifice this 

pristine wilderness for oil and gas makes no sense. These are non-renewable energy resources that would 

only result in destroying an area abundant in wildlife and unique habitat and scenic vistas for something 

that is limited in value and quantity. Where is the long term vision, the common sense? Please re-evaluate 

these proposals.

Response: No Congressionally designated wilderness areas are included within the planning area. No oil 

and gas leasing or development would be allowed in the two WSAs that are located within the planning 

area.

Comment: The air over the Upper Green has already been visibly affected by industrial pollution from 

existing gas rigs. Researchers have noticed significant declines in the mule deer herds and sage grouse 

populations that winter in the Upper Green. Tripling the number of gas wells over the next 10-15 years 

would simply make the problems worse.

Response: It is true that additional development will cause additional impacts. Increasing impacts of oil 

and gas development in the future are discussed in Chapter 4 of the EIS.

Comment: I am writing to protest the proposed opening for gas and oil drilling of 922,880 acres of public 

land including the Upper Green River Lakes, the New Fork Lakes, the land on either side of the Green 

River, and the meadows and foothills of the Wind River Range, part of the Rocky Mountains. Already the 

area just south of Pinedale has been irrevocably damaged with thousands of wells, that have had serious 

effects on air quality (smog year around) and water quality (wells are contaminated).

Response: The planning area is already open for oil and gas leasing with the exception of two small 

WSAs. There is no new opening for oil and gas drilling. The Green River Lakes and New Fork Lakes are 

not in the Pinedale BLM planning area.

Comment: I understand the concept of multiple use, but this proposal leads to one, dominant, 

inappropriate use: extraction at the cost to all of the Upper Green River Valley’s natural resources. As a 

co-owner of these lands, I object strongly to this unbalanced approach.

Response: The alternatives in the EIS attempt to provide a balance of uses across the planning area. BLM 

must honor the rights of oil and gas leaseholders. The alternatives present multiple use through providing 

areas that would not be available for leasing and would not be developed during the life of the plan.

Comment: We ask you to designate the upper Green River, upper New Fork and Hoback Rim areas as 

Unavailable for Leasing for oil and gas in your RMP. Presently, there is a moratorium on leasing on much 

of this area. This is a popular recreation, hunting and fishing area not only for the community but for the 

nation. This area has spectacular pristine landscapes; wildlife corridors, feed grounds, year-round habitat 

and birthing grounds; fragile headwaters to our rivers; and historic cattle ranches. We have placed a 

conservation easement on our property for the above reasons. We, as a community, are trying to conserve 

large portions of private land in the area through the use of conservation easements. For example, the 

Green River Valley Land Trust worked with nearly 40 families to conserve nearly 20,000 acres to date 

and hopes to double that this year. Leasing the federal minerals makes this difficult and affects the ability 

to raise funds to do so.

A27-14 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

Response: This area is considered in Alternative 3 as an area that would be unavailable for leasing. BLM 

has determined that leasing for oil and gas would not be appropriate in this area. The oil and gas 

management areas have been changed in the final EIS.

Comment: One of the biggest challenges facing public lands in the Pinedale area is growth. If 

unmanaged, the growth will continue to negatively impact our public lands - the BLM cannot let this 

happen - they are the only ones who have the power to manage this growth. The natural gas is not going 

anywhere - there is no reason to continue to lease additional land when current leases are not fully 

developed.

Response: The EIS considers a range of options for areas that would be available for new leasing for oil 

and gas. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 provides for the Secretary of the Interior to make lands 

available for oil and gas leasing.

Comment: I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to BLM’s plan to lease out all private land not currently leased 

for oil and gas exploration. I feel this would irreparably damage both the wildlife and lands that make this 

part of the world so special. Not to mention bring in the tourist dollars that bring both the state and 

Sublette county financial benefit.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to lease private mineral estate for oil and gas development. 

Some private lands underlain by federally held mineral estate would be available for oil and gas leasing.

Comment: The BLM’s preferred Alternative 4 has some positive points, but it remains fraught with 

shortcomings that could allow development to sprawl into areas that appear to be designated with No 

Surface Occupancy stipulations or as “minimally developed areas.” In reality, hidden loopholes would 

allow these designations to be waived, resulting in the potential for drilling in inappropriate areas. With 

that in mind, I specifically urge you to adopt a plan that: Paces development, including not allowing new 

major gas fields to be developed until development in existing and expanding fields has been completed; 

Preserves and enforces seasonal drilling stipulations that protect wildlife, and strengthen those shown to 

be deficient (especially greater buffer distance around sage grouse leks); Withdraws important wildlife 

and scenic areas from future oil and gas leasing availability, including all of the Wind River Front and 

greater Trapper’s Point area, the Ryegrass/ Cottonwood area, the Fontenelle elk winter range, and the 

upper Green area north of Warren Bridge; Mandates the clustering of new infrastructure and the use of 

directional drilling to minimize industry’s footprint on the ground; Removes loopholes that allow areas 

designated for minimal development to become intensively developed and allow surface drilling in No 

Surface Occupancy (NSO) areas; Requires use of the cleanest technologies and environmentally 

protective practices. 

Response: Additional language specifying how the oil and gas management areas would work, and how 

they could be changed over time, has been provided in the final EIS; the Large Block NSO Areas and 

Unavailable Areas have been revised. Limiting the pace of development by disallowing new fields until 

existing fields are complete denies lease holders the enjoyment of their oil and gas lease rights. Seasonal 

stipulations protect wildlife individuals, not habitats. In areas where habitats are compromised by dense 

drilling or other activities, seasonal stipulations provide diminishing benefits as wildlife abandon the 

habitats. Oil and gas leasing is a discretionary decision. Withdrawal is not required to make areas 

unavailable for leasing. The EIS evaluates all the areas suggested for unavailability for oil and gas 

leasing. The use of clean technologies and environmentally protective practices are included in the EIS as 

best management practices and would be implemented wherever practical.

Comment: I therefore urge the BLM to Permanently withdraw all areas of the Upper Green north of Cora 

and the Warren Bridge from any development Permanently withdraw the areas adjacent to and in the 

Pinedale RMP A27-15 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

Wyoming Range, Hoback basin, and maintain these pristine areas in their present state Withdraw and/or 

buy back leases that are already sold in the above areas. Strengthen the requirements within the already 

existing and adjacent areas that will be leased areas for use of “best available technology” and true 

mitigation efforts. REQUIRE these – don’t just let industry decide whether to do this or not. 

Response: Oil and gas leasing is a discretionary action. These areas are considered for unavailability for 

oil and gas leasing in the alternatives. BLM does not have the authority to take back or buy back existing 

leases. Best management practices and best available technologies are included in the RMP and would be 

applied wherever practical. These practices do not necessarily apply to all situations or developments and 

should not be universally required. 

Comment: The process of trying to create a surge in domestic production of energy resources is 

overshadowing any hint of proper planning for the multi-use ethic that the BLM has preached, about for 

decades. These restrictions and policies that the Department of the Interior has enforced on every single 

hunter, rancher, fisherman, hiker, and camper in this valley to protect the public lands, all of these critical 

habitat areas, all of a sudden don’t apply to some of the most destructive impacts that this area has ever 

seen. The management balancing act of the multi-user policy of the BLM has mysteriously disappeared. 

And no one in the Department of the Interior is too concerned with figuring out where it went, or why.

Response: Oil and gas leaseholders have rights BLM is legally bound to honor. The EIS attempts to 

provide balance on a planning-area scale through implementation of areas unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing, along with restrictions on other activities in those areas. High gas prices, combined with 

improving technology in gas production and unique gas reservoir geology in the Pinedale Area, have led 

to the increase in drilling activity in recent years.

Comment: As currently drafted, APC cannot support any of the alternatives proposed in the Draft 

Pinedale RMP. The currently proposed alternatives place too many restrictions on future oil and gas 

development and do not adequately protect or address APC’s existing lease rights. APC encourages the 

BLM to develop a new alternative, based on a combination of Alternatives 2 and 4, that strikes a more 

appropriate balance between oil and gas development and the necessary protection of other resource 

values and uses within the Pinedale Resource Area. 

Response: BLM analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives for oil and gas leasing availability and other 

resources. As stated in the draft EIS (page 2-8): “Existing oil and gas or other mineral lease rights would 

be honored.” 

Comment: There is no conservation alternative. All alternatives declare oil and gas development as the 

dominant use of the land. Nowhere is wildlife habitat identified in its own right. Where are 

interdisciplinary habitat management plans mentioned such as the Upper Green River HMP or the East 

Fork Aquatic HMP? Where are objectives and planned actions to specifically mitigate oil and gas 

development? I see them in no alternative, only vague promises about working groups which have not 

been created, scoped or delegated responsibility.

Response: There would be little difference in the amount of oil and gas drilling under any alternative, 

including Alternative 3, because of the areas that are currently under lease and the development already 

occurring in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline fields. Alternative 3 represents the most restrictive 

alternative BLM could legally implement, given the obligations BLM is under to current oil and gas 

leaseholders and other authorized users. It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, 

because the RMP will not directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite 

and offsite mitigation and the methods to be used would be analyzed for specific proposals where specific 

impacts can be predicted. Habitat management plans, like grazing allotment management plans, are 

A27-16 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

implementation-level plans and would be developed following completion of the RMP if necessary to 

implement RMP decisions.

Comment: The subject RMP document is a product that has become the hallmark of the BLM during the 

Bush Administration. It is riddled with false premises, faith-based positive-outcome based predictions, 

unsupported assertions, reliance upon junk science, and obfuscation of serious environmental impact 

potential via the practice of verbal low-balling. This pattern of behavior is made all the more 

objectionable by the Statement in section 4.21, page 4-258 of the subject document that the number of 

wells in the planning area could quadruple. It strains credulity to believe that such a surge would not 

produce far worse impacts than the document tip toes around using the tactics just mentioned. 

Response: Because the vast majority of the new wells would be infill wells in existing fields, many 

impacts would be limited to those fields. For a variety of reasons, large numbers of new wells outside of 

existing fields are not anticipated. Impacts of increasing development on wildlife habitats, air quality, and 

other resources are included in Chapter 4.

Comment: The United States Forest Service as recently as 2002 offered that the Upper Green River 

Valley is a place of “irreplaceable beauty and worth” and set this area aside for no development. BLM 

unfortunately believes they can ignore other governmental agencies in the mad dash to extract every 

vapor of gas and smells of hydrocarbons.

Response: The Bridger-Teton Forest Plan makes the forested areas of the Upper Green River Valley 

available for oil and gas leasing, with the exception of the established wilderness areas. 

Comment: I support the BLM developing a new alternative with an increased review of the positive 

benefits of oil and gas development.

Response: Analysis of the benefits of oil and gas production can be completed without development of a 

new alternative. These benefits and impacts are described in Chapter 4.

Comment: Essentially the BLM’s initial decision to select Alternative 4 as its preferred alternative comes 

down to a determination that it is so crucial to increase natural gas production in the Pinedale Field Office 

by less than 13 percent that this course of action must be pursued even though environmental impacts are 

greatly increased and environmental protections greatly reduced. The BLM has yet to provide a rational 

explanation for this decision and we ask that it do so in the final EIS if not sooner. Why is increasing 

natural gas production by a mere 12.8 percent justified given the admittedly much more severe 

environmental impacts that would occur pursuant to Alternative 4? How can this decision be sustained in 

light of national legislative commands to protect the natural environment while pursuing domestic 

mineral production? What exact and needed benefits will production of 2,438 billion cubic feet of 

additional natural gas produced over the course of 20 years afford this country and how exactly do those 

benefits compare to the reduction in environmental services, values, and resources that will be lost as a 

result of the increased environmental damage that would occur pursuant to Alternative 4? Quite simply, 

what are the costs and benefits of this tradeoff?

Response: Environmental and land-use issues are central to natural gas production in any region, and 

particularly so in the Pinedale Management Area, where public lands, federal mineral estates, wildlife, 

and sensitive environments are pervasive. A portion of public lands containing natural gas resources in 

the Pinedale Management Area is unavailable for leasing, in order to preserve wilderness, wildlife habitat, 

and other important societal values. On public lands managed for multiple uses, operators must meet a 

wide array of environmental protection requirements. Alternative 4 provides the best balance of resource 

use and resource protection. Impacts are quantified to the extent possible in the document using the best 

Pinedale RMP A27-17 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

available data. Where specific data are not available, impacts are presented in a qualitative manner. The 

alternatives in the EIS attempt to provide a balance of uses across the planning area. BLM must honor the 

rights of oil and gas leaseholders. The alternatives present multiple use through providing areas that 

would not be available for leasing and would not be developed during the life of the plan. It is important 

to note the purpose of impact analysis is to assess the social and economic consequences of implementing 

the various alternatives identified in the planning process (H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook). This is not a benefit-cost analysis.

Comment: Alternative 3 represents an opportunity for the BLM to uphold its multiple use mandate by 

providing considerable oil and gas resources for leasing to private companies, while at the same time 

protecting the other uses and values they are required to provide to the public. 

Although BLM has failed to measure non-market values, by it’s own admission “It could be possible that 

under Alternative 4...the societal nonmarket values could decrease more than the value of the oil and gas 

extracted” (p. 4-129 and 4-130) – in other words a net loss to society. Furthermore, Alternative 3, which 

will undoubtedly result in a greater level of non-market values than Alternative 4, may also result in a net 

loss when these values are compared with the considerable oil and gas revenue (p. 4-126). Given the high 

likelihood of both these alternatives favoring oil and gas drilling over other multiple uses and values, it 

would seem to be more prudent and equitable for BLM to adopt Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. 

With Alternative 3, the reductions in oil and gas revenue, tax revenue and jobs are small, compared with 

the potential gains over Alternative 4 in non-market values, ecological values, community stability, the 

protection of what remains of the lifestyle that drew many residents to the area, protection of other 

industries such as agriculture and recreation, the long-term economic diversity and prosperity for the 

area’s communities, and the reduction in the already considerable costs to provide social and community 

services. The table below compares the oil and gas impacts of the two alternatives. 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Comparison (Alternative 3/Alternative 4) 

Acres available for oil and gas leasing 

(Source: pages 2-19, 2-20) 487,360 1,024,880 48% * 

Acres available (Source: pages 4-61, 4-70) 

Intensive development 78,070 175,750 44% 

Minimally developed 498,790 672,470 74% 

Total 576,860 848,220 68% 

Resources (Source: Table 2-34) 

Gas (billion cubic feet) 16,730 19,168 87% 

Oil (million barrels) 130 150 87% 

Value of production (Source: Table 4-13) $57,839,007,476 $61,066,266,144 95% 

Tax revenue (Source: Table 4-14) $9,480,559,751 $11,757,942,222 81% * 

Total labor earnings (Source: Table 4-13) $6,800,822,205 $8,105,708,898 84% 

Wells/year (Source: Table 4-13) 316 372 85% 

Total wells (Source: Table 2-34) 6,074 7,863 77% 

Jobs/year (Source: Table 4-13) 

Drilling jobs 7332 9211 80% 

Production jobs 2534 2754 92% 

Total jobs 9866 11965 82% 

Livestock AUMs (Source: Table 2-25) 84,000 107,907 78% 

* See earlier remarks about inconsistencies. 

What these numbers tell us is that even if the BLM protects between 32% and 52% of the land from oil 

and gas development (depending on which acreage figures are accurate) the oil and gas industry can still 

A27-18 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

extract 87% of the oil and gas resources, reap 95% of the value of these resources, 82% of the jobs will 

still be created and (here again the accuracy of the numbers is in question) the communities in the area 

will gain at least 81% of the tax revenues. The tradeoff is clearly a net gain. Recommendations: Given 

that Alternative 3 would result in a large increase in both economic and ecological benefits and at the 

same time result in only a small reduction in oil and gas revenues and jobs, Alternative 3 better achieves 

the agency’s multiple use mission. We request that the BLM adopt Alternative 3 as it’s preferred 

alternative for the final RMP.

Response: There are many factors, including stakeholders and economic values, that BLM must consider 

in choosing a management plan to meet BLM’s multiple use mission. BLM agrees that non-market values 

are significant and important.

Comment: the BLM is engaged in a ruse in the sense that it really doesn’t consider a full range of 

reasonable alternatives, as it is required to do by NEPA. While that is a conservation alternative 

restricting leasing to the 400,000 acre range, all the remaining alternatives contemplate well over 

1,000,000 acres of subsurface estate open to leasing. Most of the differences among the remaining 

alternatives involve minor details and/or relatively small portions of land.

Response: The alternatives in the EIS attempt to provide a balance of uses across the planning area. BLM 

must honor the rights of oil and gas leaseholders. Current oil and gas leases cover approximately 61% of 

the public land and mineral estate in the planning area. BLM analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives. 

Comment: A more balanced focus on both mineral and non-mineral resources, current land uses, and the 

human interface would have revealed the fundamental changes that have occurred in the RMP area in the 

past 20 years that are unrecognized in the draft document and thus not taken into account. Energy 

incorporated as one component of a draft Plan is appropriate. Energy as the lynchpin of the plan is not. It 

skews the alternatives presented for consideration. 

Response: The plan and draft EIS must recognize the importance of the changes in oil and gas 

exploration and production, and the way that those changes impact BLM’s management of the planning 

area. Energy is a central issue in land management in the Pinedale planning area and must be treated as 

such.

Comment: This means that a significant extension of the principles of Alternative 3 as presented in the 

DEIS, if greatly improved, could garner significant public and political support. We would like to see in 

the next DEIS an “Alternative 3 modified” that is far more conservative in its scope. Even better, the 

amount of land associated with the next edition of a draft PRMP dedicated to mineral development should 

be largely confined to the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Field, and other resources such as the proposed 

grazing allotment shrinkage should not be the penalty for this more conservative approach. 

Response: BLM is required to honor the rights of oil and gas leaseholders, and does not have the 

authority to prohibit oil and gas development of existing valid leases. Alternative 3 represents the most 

restrictive alternative BLM could legally implement, given the obligations BLM is under to current oil 

and gas leaseholders and other authorized users. 

It was important to consider the impacts of closing grazing allotments in areas of intensive oil and gas 

development. It was not intended as a “trade-off” for other facets of Alternative 3. BLM can choose 

individual elements of each alternative in formulating the Proposed Plan; alternatives do not have to be 

carried forward in their entirety.

Pinedale RMP A27-19 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

Comment: In its discussion of directional drilling on page 4-47, the BLM should also discuss 

information regarding limitations on the BLM’s ability to mandate directional drilling. The IBLA has 

expressly determined that the BLM does not have the authority to require the movement of proposed 

operations more than. 200 meters, unless a nondiscretionary statute is implicated. See Colorado Envtl 

Coal, et al., 169 IBLA 137, 144 (2006) (holding that BLM cannot require relocation of a proposed well 

by 400 meters); see also 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2 (2006). The BLM properly notes that directional drilling 

increases costs and results in lost resources when casing cannot be brought to the bottom of the hole. See 

RMP DEIS, pg 4-49. The BLM should also note that directional drilling can lead to increased air 

emissions by as much as 20% as compared to vertical drilling given the increased drilling times and load 

factors on drilling rig engines. See, e.g., ,JIDP ROD, pg. 13. 

Response: BLM does not mandate directional drilling. Directional drilling is included as a viable method 

of reducing impacts of oil and gas development on surface resources, where appropriate.

Comment: The BLM’s Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for the Pinedale Resource 

Area is out-of-date and inaccurate. The BLM needs to include information explaining the purpose of the 

RFD Scenario and its role in the planning process. The BLM must also significantly update and revise the 

RFD Scenario in light of approved and proposed oil and gas development within the resource area. The 

BLM should first include specific information in the Final EIS, the Record of Decision and the actual 

Resource Management Plan for the Pinedale Resource Area itself confirming the fact that the RFD 

Scenario is not a planning decision or limitation on the level of development authorized within the 

Pinedale Resource Area. The RFD is defined by the BLM “baseline scenario of activity assuming all 

potentially as a productive areas can be open under standard lease terms and conditions, except those 

areas designated as closed to leasing by law, regulation or executive order.” BLM Instruction 

Memorandum 2004-089, Attachment 1-1 (January 16, 2004). 

Response: BLM’s Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) conducted a review of 

the RFD on June 28, 2007, and concluded that the number presented in the draft EIS is current, valid, and 

applicable. You are correct in your statement that an RFD is neither a planning decision nor a NEPA 

alternative. It is, however, an estimate of activity from which the impact analysis is developed. The 

definition for the term “Reasonable Foreseeable Development” has been added to the glossary for the 

final EIS. As stated in Chapter 1, BLM is bound by its governing regulations, including current and valid 

Instruction Memoranda; consequently it is not necessary to repeat or state their contents in the final EIS. 

Comment: Given the vast quantities of hazardous materials being used in the PRA for oil and gas 

development, BLM needs to do more than simply come up with “response plans.” The agency needs to 

proactively avoid potential contamination by adopting management standards to: (i) prohibit the use of 

particularly problematic chemicals (e.g., prohibit carcinogens and mutagens that cannot be easily 

removed from ground or surface waters), (ii) restrict and regulate the use of other hazardous materials to 

prevent ground and surface water contamination (e.g., prohibit the use of hazardous materials on surfaces 

overlying highly sensitive aquifers), and (iii) ensure adequate bonding for full remediation of all potential 

hazmat releases and associated contamination (including contamination that may not be discovered for 

many years). The proposed RMP direction does none of these things.

Response: Like many industries, oil and gas operators use specific chemicals in their manufacturing 

process. Unfortunately, “green” alternative products are not available for all chemicals that are used for 

drilling and development of oil and natural gas wells. Thus, the focus is for the operators to minimize 

potential environmental impacts by properly storing, transporting, using, and disposing of hazardous 

materials. Various policies and requirements address environmental impacts. They may include, but are 

not limited to, operators having Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plans, where applicable; 

operations having spill response plans; lining reserve pits with impervious material; and installing 

A27-20 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

monitor wells on locations with shallow ground water. Bonding specifically to address hazardous 

substance remediation is unnecessary since Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (CERCLA) authority allows BLM to hold responsible parties liable for all cleanup 

costs.

Comment: • The RMP should require BLM’s annual monitoring and evaluation report to summarize all 

hazmat releases in the PRA. This summary should state the types and quantities of materials released and 

also evaluate remediation progress (e.g., fully successful, unsuccessful, in progress, etc.). If ground or 

surface waters are contaminated, the summary should disclose the volumes of water affected and whether 

contaminants have been fully removed. The RMP should also require BLM to interview oil and gas 

industry employees about unreported spills, and any information gained from this process should also be 

disclosed in the annual monitoring and evaluation report.

Response: Information for hazardous material and petroleum releases can be requested through the 

Freedom of Information Act process.

Document/NEPA/Alternatives/Process 

Comment: Please provide me with notice that your final Plan an FEIS/ROD is complete. Also please 

indicate the link so I might read the both electronically. If I do not see significant wildlife mitigation built 

into your ROD (which will legally bind you to implement it) your final Pinedale Resource Area Plan and 

FEIS/ROD will be mailed to the following people who do care about public land: Senators Bingaman and 

Wyden and Rep. Rahall

Response: Notice of availability of the final EIS and record of decision (ROD) will be published in the 

Federal Register and local media when those documents are available. Everyone on the mailing list will 

receive a copy of the documents as they become available. 

Comment: A proper DEIS, supposedly for the purpose of future planning guidance for the entire 

Pinedale RMP, cannot ignore these facts and their implications; the Draft before us does just that. Thus 

this DEIS should be completely redone, based on a new, appropriately comprehensive framework, and 

actual current data based on the current state of mineral sprawl in the region, and subjected to a new 

comment period. 

Response: The draft EIS/RMP was developed on the best available inventories and data at the time, see 

page 4-2 of the draft EIS. Data are continually accruing and changing. It is neither practical nor 

reasonable to re-initiate a plan or EIS every time a new piece of data becomes available. The RMP/EIS 

would never be completed were BLM to operate in this fashion. 

Comment: We desperately need an alternative 5, no further destruction of our environment. Please try to 

put that rational alternative into the running before making the final decision. The decisions we make in 

the next 10 years will decide the fate of all life on our planet, including our own. And there won’t be a 

second chance if we do it wrong.

Response: Alternative 3 represents the most restrictive alternative BLM could legally implement, given 

the obligations BLM is under to current oil and gas leaseholders and other authorized users. Also, Section 

2.2.2 discusses more restrictive alternatives, including full closure of the planning area to further oil and 

gas leasing, which were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis.

Comment: As someone who’s deeply concerned about the future of America’s wild places and unspoiled 

lands, I DO NOT support this whole wild life corridor mumbo jumbo if the mule deer numbers are down 

cut back on the hunting licenses for a while we need more fuel resources from home the animals have 

Pinedale RMP A27-21 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

adapted for years and will be fine how about the human people extinct from using the forest for jobs 

homes fuel and motorized recreation. do what you need to

Response: The presence of wildlife migration corridors is well documented through studies of collared 

animals. Migration corridors provide connection between summer and winter ranges and are vital for the 

survival of the species. Reducing hunting pressure is not within the authority of BLM; however, reducing 

hunting pressure will not preserve a herd that cannot access its winter range. Very little of the planning 

area is forested (about 70,000 acres, or 7% of BLM-administered surface lands). Social and economic 

impacts of the alternatives are discussed in Section 4.10.

Comment: Per federal law, the process of drafting a new RMP is supposed to be subject to public 

comment. However, BLM only posted a very small and uninformative blurb in the local papers informing 

the public where an open house would be so the public could see the plan they might want to comment 

on. The blurbs were only 1 week prior to the actual meetings, which just happened to occur during spring 

break, calving and tax season. The document detailing the proposal on paper can be measured by weight 

(about 5 lbs I have heard) and on computer is 117 files, most containing multiple pages (one file has 204 

pages). To expect the public to be able to respond in an educated manner to these highly technical 

documents in little over a month (comment deadline was originally May 18th, but was later revised to 

June 18th due to public outcry), while still tending to their jobs, family, sleep, etc. is ludicrous and clearly 

demonstrates BLM’s will to exclude the public from the process. Also, the RMP public meetings 

occurred within a week of other major BLM meetings, so most of the public was confused as to whether 

these RMP meetings were just a repeat of previous Pinedale anticline SEIS meetings, which I understand 

were also exhausting and complex. The BLM mission statement is as follows, pasted from their website: 

“The Bureau of Land Management sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for 

the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.” By allowing large corporations to drill 

thousands of wells with little or no monitoring or mitigation, BLM has already blatantly and irreparably 

neglected their mission during the last several years in the Pinedale management area. The plan they are 

currently proposing is an even further dereliction of their duty as stewards of federal land. In order for 

BLM to start following their mission statement, they should do the following: Have the public comment 

period for the draft RMP extended further to allow for more accurate and informative public meetings to 

take place. Make the entire Wind River Front (NE corner of the plan area) be permanently unavailable to 

drilling, possibly by simply making current leasing moratoriums permanent. Ensure that unbiased, 

scientifically proven air and water quality monitoring takes place, and that industrial activity is 

immediately stopped when pollutants reach unacceptable levels in this area or surrounding areas, 

including the adjacent wilderness. Ensure that wildlife is also monitored and that industrial activity 

negatively impacting it is stopped immediately until a way to definitively mitigate impacts is adopted. 

Response: The notice of public meetings and hearings was published at least 15 days before the hearings 

occurred. The public comment period ran from February 16 through June 18, 2007, a total of 122 days, an 

addition of 32 days to the required 90-day public comment period. Unfortunately, whenever meetings are 

scheduled, there are individuals who cannot attend. This is why the comment periods extend both prior to 

and after the meetings so that individual can submit their written comments. It is also unfortunate that 

planning and other documents have increased in size to the point that they are difficult to read. However, 

the length is necessary to thoroughly discuss all the issues that BLM is required to address in a planning 

EIS. Making the Wind River Front Area unavailable to oil and gas leasing and development is considered 

in the EIS. Air and water quality monitoring and enforcement of air and water quality standards are the 

authority of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), as delegated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Monitoring of wildlife populations is conducted by the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the 

RMP level because the RMP will not directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness 

A27-22 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

of onsite and offsite mitigation, and the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where 

specific impacts can be predicted.

Comment: •Employ the spatial analysis techniques described above to carefully evaluate the impacts of 

existing transportation networks and oil and gas development on wildlife and natural and cultural 

resources, in order to assess the need for closure and other limitations on the use of existing roads (and 

other routes) and oil and gas development, and to develop and thoroughly evaluate alternatives. This is 

crucial to do as a part of resource management planning - key for assessing possible effects, as well as for 

developing solutions to prevent damage to the values of these areas during the 15-20 year life of the plan. 

It also insures that an agency will comply with its obligations to fully consider the cumulative effects of 

decisions made on the many resources and uses in the planning area.

Response: The final EIS considers the impacts of road and right-of-way (ROW) development on wildlife 

habitats through fragmentation, increased human presence, and direct habitat impacts. The areas 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing are intended to offset the impacts of road and ROW development in the 

existing gas fields.

Comment: I therefore strongly oppose this Alternative and support instead Alternative 3 with the 

following revision included in its final form: • Thresholds will be set for wildlife populations and air 

quality standards and, if met, will immediately trigger cutbacks in production levels.

Response: The problem with this sort of threshold is that once the population impact is apparent, the 

habitat damage is done. Cutbacks in production would not mitigate the impact at that point. Even 

prohibiting the drilling of any new wells would not address the existing fragmentation and human 

presence issues. This is why other types of mitigation are necessary and why the EIS reveals that some 

wildlife populations would be impacted during the life of the plan. 

Comment: You are doing an unprofessional and unacceptable job of collecting public input. . Contrary to 

your press release, the RMP Revision website at www.b1m.eovIrmpIvvy/pinedale provides no visible 

link to submit comments electronically or upload electronic files. I finally found the electronic comments 

page, (http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/involved.html) but my comments deal with your 

fundamental failure to meet the NEPA requirement to assess impacts on the human environment rather 

than on the arbitrary topics you’ve listed. The e-mail address repeatedly bounced my attempts to send 

comments, and you provide no FAX number.

Response: Many individuals were able to submit comments on the website. Approximately 98,000 

individuals, including you, were able to submit their comments through the methods provided. It is also 

unfortunate that incorrect e-mail addresses were advertised by several individuals and groups soliciting 

comments on the draft EIS. BLM attempted to address this issue by informing the local papers of the 

correct e-mail address.

Comment: I would also hope that proper funding be provided to allow the BLM to wholly and 

objectively see to it that the performance based process is appropriately implemented.

Response: In order to analyze the alternatives, BLM assumes that adequate funding and employees 

would be available to implement them. It is difficult to predict the actual availability of this funding in the 

future.

Comment: In the wake of the Pinedale Anticline Supplemental EIS and Jonah Infill EIS, two projects of 

massive scope and implication, the BLM must ensure that the RMP is consistent with the objectives set 

forth in these documents. It is essential that these projects are not in conflict with the provisions of the 

Pinedale RMP A27-23 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

12MP, such that the development contemplated in these documents can continue in a manner that 

dovetails with the overall management philosophy for the Pinedale Field Office contemplated in the 

RMP.

Response: The RMP alternatives are designed to work with ongoing development of the Jonah and 

Anticline fields.

Comment: I found the EIS so vague and short sighted in some sections; it was hard to argue with text 

containing little substance. Comparing relative impacts of the various options is a poor substitute to 

difficult task of quantifying actual impacts, 

Response: Impacts were quantified to the extent possible using the best available data. Where specific 

data are not available, impacts are presented in a qualitative manner which may provide a more general 

comparison between the alternatives.

Comment: Going to the subject of alternatives, this RMP commits the same failure as was cited by EPA 

regarding the Anticline SEIS, to wit: “Given the magnitude of potential impacts to the environment, EPA 

recommends the BLM fully analyze at least one additional alter-native ....”15 EPA led up to that 

recommendation by citing the failure by BLM to consider additional alternatives of either “reduced pace 

of development” or a “conservative alternative.” As EPA noted, “NEPA requires a range of reasonable 

alternatives to a proposed action”16 and BLM has again seriously failed to implement that law with this 

RMP.

Response: Alternative 3 represents the most restrictive alternative BLM could legally implement, given 

the obligations BLM is under to current oil and gas leaseholders and other authorized users. Also, Section 

2.2.2 of the draft EIS discusses more restrictive alternatives, including full closure of the planning area to 

further oil and gas leasing, which was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis.

Comment: Accordingly, given the miniscule differences between the four RMP Alternatives, an 

additional alternative must be included which contemplates no development outside of a box bounded by 

Highway 191 on the east, 42° 53' 00" North Latitude on the north, Highway 189 on the west, and 42° 23' 

00" North Latitude on the south. This box encompasses all existing development in the Jonah and 

Anticline fields but excludes all lands in the Upper Green River Valley, the Wyoming Range, and the 

Wind River Range. 

Response: BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of existing oil and gas leases in 

these areas; see discussion on page 2-8 of the draft EIS. Also, Section 2.2.2 of the draft EIS discusses 

more restrictive alternatives, including full closure of the planning area to further oil and gas leasing, 

which was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. BLM does not have the authority to prohibit 

oil and gas leasing on U.S. Department of Agriculture National Forest system lands in the Wyoming and 

Wind River ranges.

Comment: There are few data citations throughout the document for restrictions and regulations, more 

data citations should be provided in order to help establish the basis for a new regulation.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to implement new regulations in an RMP. The best available 

data were used in formulating the alternatives and impact analyses.

Comment: So much of this document seems based on out of date data or no data. Please review the 

newest data available and revise these sections.

A27-24 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

Response: The best available data were used in formulating the alternatives and impact analyses.

Comment: I am, however, concerned that much of the information relating to potential resource areas is 

out-dated. There are new findings on current field production and well results available, which have not 

been incorporated. This means that deep potential needs to be updated based on the new data. I also think 

that all acreage and percentages should be reanalyzed.

Response: The best available data were used in formulating the alternatives and impact analyses. 

Comment: Each alternative needs a chart describing the recoverable resource. How can we decide which 

alternative to support if we do not know how much resources will be lost and never recovered?

Response: This information is found in Section 4.7.1 of the draft EIS, Impact Analysis for Leasable 

Minerals. 

Comment: I specifically urge you to adopt a plan that: * Alleviates air quality impacts, especially on 

Class I airsheds. * Requires the use of the cleanest technologies and environmentally protective practices. 

*Paces development to allow proper consideration and application of adaptive management principles. 

*Withdraws important wildlife and scenic areas from future oil and gas leasing availability.

Response: Air quality monitoring and enforcement of air quality standards is the authority of the 

Wyoming DEQ, as delegated by EPA. Clean technologies and environmentally protective practices are 

included in the EIS as best management practices and would be implemented wherever practical. 

Limiting the pace of development denies lease holders the enjoyment of their oil and gas lease rights. Oil 

and gas leasing is a discretionary decision. Withdrawal is not required to make areas unavailable for 

leasing. The EIS considers making areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing.

Comment: Finally, I don’t really understand what all of the potential impacts may be in each of the 

alternatives. Maybe you should include a series of charts or something in the plan that would show 

comparisons between the alternatives for all the categories of potential impacts.

Response: A summary comparison of impacts is presented in Table 2-34, which begins on page 2-191 in 

the draft EIS.

Comment: I fear the should provide a more high level overview of how the land should be managed. 

Alternative 3 is too prescriptive in regards to particular management practices. Other NEPA documents 

such as EAs and EISs are more appropriate for detailed land use regulations.

Response: Alternative 3, like the other alternatives analyzed, contains decisions appropriate to the RMP 

level. Specific field management decisions are included in field development EISs, such as the Jonah EIS 

and Pinedale Anticline Supplemental EIS.

Comment: I recently heard an advertisement on the radio stating that the mule deer and sage chicken 

population has decreased by 50% due to the impact of the drilling in the area. I see them all over on the 

Mesa and in the Jonah. I would like to know where this data was collected. I would be very interested if 

you could forward this data that was used to come up with these percentages to my office. If there is no 

such data then I request that it not be advertised as fact on the radio.

Response: Without more information, the source of these percentages is not known. BLM is not aware of 

these radio broadcasts and cannot be responsible for everything broadcast in various media by various 

parties. However, recent information provided by the WGFD on the sage grouse population within 1 mile 

Pinedale RMP A27-25 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

of the Jonah Project Area has shown sage grouse have declined an average of 67%; and within 1 mile of 

the Anticline, sage grouse populations have declined an average of 30%.

Comment: This draft resource plan for the Pinedale area seems to be really specific and not a more 

general guidance document. I’d rather see a planning document, and then make the industry come back 

with an EIS or EA when they are planning a specific development.

Response: The RMP contains material appropriate for the land use planning level of decisionmaking.

Comment: The gathering of impact data is too far behind the curve of development.

Response: It is true that a lag can exist between the cause of an impact and the detection of that impact. 

This is one of the things that makes design of mitigation difficult.

Comment: the DRMP should provide a more in-depth analysis of the four management alternatives and 

the categories of development in some of the alternatives. Specifically, the current maps contained in the 

alternatives analysis make it difficult to properly analyze the alternatives and make sound 

recommendations for the FRMP. Accordingly, when BLM provides the public with detailed maps, USQ 

requests an additional 90-day comment period to use the detailed maps to analyze the impacts of the 

RMP. 

Response: BLM intended to produce adequate maps. The lines on the maps representing variations 

between categories of development are not intended to be hard and fast boundaries. The establishment of 

more detailed boundaries will be made in the RMP ROD. Without specific guidance on what is needed to 

produce “detailed maps”, it is not possible for BLM to be responsive to this request. The commenter is 

welcome to directly contact the BLM office for specific information.

Comment: Nowhere in the DRMP is the intent to recognize the validity of pre-existing authorizations 

more evident than in the discussion under 4.7.1 Leasable Minerals page 4-46: “Surface use restrictions, 

including timing limitation stipulations (TLS), NSO stipulations, and controlled surface use (CSU) 

stipulations, as well as unavailable for leasing designations, cannot be retroactively applied to valid, 

existing oil and gas leases or to valid, existing use authorizations (e.g., Application for Permit to Drill 

[APDJ). Postlease actions/authorizations (APDs, road/pipeline ROWs, etc.), however, could be 

encumbered by TLS and CSU restrictions on a case-by-case basis, as required through project-specific 

NEPA analysis or other environmental review.” 

This intent is further clarified a few pages later on page 4-48: Impacts Common to all Alternatives: “In 

addition to the prescriptions developed through this plan, there are additional in place prescriptions, 

restrictions, and prohibitions imposed on leasable mineral development by existing oil and gas field 

development NEPA documents, including but not limited to the ROD for the Jonah Infill Project, the 

ROD for the Pinedale Anticline, and the ROD for the Big Piney/LaBarge Coordinated Activity Plan 

(CAP). The decisions in these documents are retained by reference in all alternatives to this RMP.” 

Despite the passages quoted above, the analogous case law and the RMP regulations, however, there are 

statements in the DRMP regarding the validity of prior authorizations that have been qualified by the use 

of the word “immediately.” Specifically, on page i of the summary it is stated: “This RMP revision will 

result in a land use allocation plan for the Pinedale planning area. Previous site specific or project-level 

implementation decisions, such as those made for the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline gas fields, would not 

be immediately altered by this RMP revision. 

A27-26 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

In addition, similar language appears on page 1-2 of Chapter 1: “This RMP revision will result in a land 

use allocation plan for the Pinedale planning area. Previous site specific or project-level implementation 

decisions, such as those made for the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline gas fields, would not be immediately 

altered by this RMP revision. Operators may request, and BLM may consider, revising existing oil and 

gas leases to conform with new RMP decisions but existing leases and developments will continue to be 

managed under their respective operating plans unless and until changes are specifically approved.” 

Inserting the caveat “immediately” before these statements implies that the validity of prior authorizations 

is transitory and that at some point in the future, authorizations existing before the FRMP would 

retroactively be altered by the RMP revisions. The word “immediately,” or any other qualifying 

terminology, should be eliminated in these statements and any other statements in the DRMP when 

referencing a prior authorization, unless, and only if, the scope of a previously authorized project changes 

beyond the respective prior authorization. 

In addition, a definitive statement regarding the validity of prior authorizations needs to be included in the 

description of all alternatives and carried forth in the FRMP.

Response: The intention of the RMP is for pre-existing field development-level EISs and decisions, such 

as the Jonah ROD and the Pinedale Anticline Supplemental EIS, to stand. The use of the word 

“immediately” in these instances was intended to allow that oil and gas operators could request changes in 

their lease status to recognize the performance-based strategy of the RMP. In retrospect, we find that the 

use of the term “immediately” is confusing and we have removed it from the final EIS.

Comment: In addition, the various charts and maps need to more accurately show differences between 

different categories within the Alternatives in order to allow the reader to understand the potential 

impacts. Charts comparing the Alternatives do not capture the differences between the differently 

managed fields within the Alternatives and their different restrictions or allowances. Improving both the 

charts and the maps could rectify this problem. USQ requests that when BLM provides the detailed maps 

and revised charts to the public that it provide an additional 90-day comment period prior to issuance of 

the FRMP. 

Response: It is not within the scope of the RMP to exhaustively analyze the comparisons between sitespecific management actions in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline fields. The Jonah and Anticline fields, 

as well as other gas fields in the planning area, would continue to operate under their approved decision 

documents.

Comment: Although some monitoring has been done, due to the complexity of the situation and general 

understaffing of involved agencies I do not believe there is an accurate, unbiased, accounting of all the 

impacts to air, water, wildlife, soil, cultural resources, vegetation and recreation.

Response: The RMP used the best available data in the formulation of the alternatives and analysis of 

impacts of the various alternatives.

Comment: Throughout the document the BLM uses terms like “objectives, performance based, science 

and adaptive management.” These terms assume that planning can result in implementation of activities 

which can be measured. I support this sort of notion, but encourage BLM to actually undertake the 

necessary activity to put these terms into practice. It has been my recent experience that there is little 

baseline data regarding grazing and wildlife activities in the area. I understand that the BLM budget has 

been tight, but there is no accountability for the plans or actions without appropriate monitoring over a 

period of time.

Pinedale RMP A27-27 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

Response: To assess the impacts of the alternatives, it must be assumed that implementation of the 

alternatives would be carried out. It is not possible to predict the actual availability of funding and 

personnel to carry out implementation. However, BLM intends to implement the plan as written.

Comment: Communication sites have also been limited to already-existing sites (pg. 2-79). Further, the 

DRMP states that any tower would be limited to heights not requiring FAA lighting and only selfsupporting towers would be allowed. The DRMP has provided no basis for imposing such stringent 

restrictions that could severely limit field communications and restrain the use of remote telemetry. This 

restriction should be deleted or justification should be provided.

Response: An adequate range of alternatives is provided for analysis purposes. Alternatives 2 and 4 are 

less restrictive then Alternative 3, and both provide for looking at communication sites on a case-by-case 

basis, taking technical specifications into consideration. Self-supporting towers would take up less space 

and create less surface disturbance. More communication towers could be placed together, and there 

would be less interference. 

Comment: USQ is concerned that these restrictions lack a case-by-case analysis of specific projects, and 

because of the inadequate maps, there is no means to identify the specific areas with any certainty. As 

such, BLM should address these deficiencies in the FRMP. 

Response: The RMP is a land use planning document, not an analysis or comparison of individual 

projects. This information is beyond the scope of the RMP.

Comment: The role of the various agencies in regulating air and water quality needs to be clarified. In 

the case of air and water quality, USQ recommends adding a clarifying statement that the State of 

Wyoming has primacy on air, water and wildlife. In some chapters of the document the BLM 

acknowledges state primacy on these issues; however, in other areas such as discussions on discharge 

permits, the DRMP indicates that BLM would make the final decision. In light of the primacy issue, 

which is discussed above, this needs to be clarified and corrected. 

Response: See draft EIS page 3-9: “The State of Wyoming has primacy with regard to air quality.” Also, 

see draft EIS page 3-110: “The State of Wyoming has primacy with regard to water quality.” BLM has 

management responsibility for wildlife habitats on BLM-administered public lands.

Comment: This RMP, which will set management parameters on public land for 20 years, should not 

specify specific technologies in the document or presume the implementation of a particular technology 

across basins. In addition, the RMP should include economic practicability as a standard for consideration 

of technological implementation. The RMP should note that not all technology applies to all projects. 

Technology should be applied as appropriate on a site specific basis.

Response: Technologies are included in the best management practices appendix and would be applied as 

appropriate, allowing for matching of techniques to the situation and providing for cost-effectiveness. 

Comment: The DRMP lacks data citations throughout the entire document when issuing definitive 

statements regarding restrictions and regulations. Data citations should be verified and provided. Some 

examples are provided in the matrices. In addition, the DRMP should not rely on any research or 

scientific studies in its analyses unless and until those studies have passed the litmus test of peer review.

Response: The RMP does not have the authority to enact regulations. Management actions are developed 

to address impacts specific to the planning area and would not appear in literature citations—research 

A27-28 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

studies are not land management actions. In addition, the best available data were used in formulating the 

alternatives and impact analyses.

Comment: “Stakeholder groups” noted in the analysis for Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative) need to be 

expanded to be accurate. Ranchers, sportsmen, and younger residents are being directly displaced as a 

direct result of energy activities. Lands will be unavailable for grazing as a result of some intensive 

natural gas development on some allotments, hunting grounds, (for instance in the Jonah field) are no 

longer available for hunting because of gas drilling activity there, and younger residents cannot afford any 

real estate to make their home here. 

Response: The final EIS has been updated to include more stakeholder groups (see Section 4.10).

Comment: The DRMP on page 2-31 indicates “The Riley Ridge Project Monitoring Program would be 

continued. Further monitoring would include gathering of geological data in the Deadline Ridge-Graphite 

Hollow crucial elk winter range to aid in preparation of the proposed activity plan. Monitoring would be 

coordinated with other resource monitoring programs such as wildlife, surface and ground water quality, 

grazing, and cultural resources, as appropriate.” EM believes it is necessary and important for BLM to 

explain the tangible benefits that have been achieved. BLM has not provided any information as to the 

results of the current monitoring program; nor has it been explained why it should be retained. Without 

this information, it is impossible to justify its retention. BLM needs to provide information supporting the 

need for the program, including the findings and benefits, in the Final EIS or it should be eliminated.

Response: This management action was part of the 1988 RMP ROD and so must be included in the 

description of Alternative 1, the continuation of the existing management situation.

Comment: Page Number & Issue: 4-73: “The impacts related to noise reduction would be the same as 

those described in the mineral development discussion under Alternative 3.” Recommendations: Explain 

and cite source or delete.

Response: Because essentially the same requirements for noise reduction would be applied, the impacts 

to operators would be similar to Alternative 3.

Comment: The Draft Pinedale RMP does not set forth the recognized requirements for developing a 

legally and scientifically adequate adaptive management program. Rather BLM relies on vague, nonbinding language that may or may not result in appropriate monitoring and evaluation of operating 

standards and mitigation efforts during implementation. (Examples: “may be specified,” “when and where 

practicable,” “may be required,” “should meet,” “where feasible,” “possible and compatible,” “provided 

this requirement is compatible with other needs,” “should be avoided when practicable.” (All from pages 

A3-5 through A3-9 of Draft RMP). Adaptive management is not simply a phrase to throw into a planning 

document when the agency lacks information or resources. Rather, it is a “scientifically based, 

systematically structured approach that tests and monitors management plan assumptions, predictions and 

actions, and then uses the resulting information to improve management plans and practices.” 

(Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research, Ecosystem Management: Science at Work: 

http://www.fsl.orest.edu/cfer/rschneed /ecomngt.html). 

As the BLM has expressly noted elsewhere (see Draft Little Snake Resource Management Plan EIS, 

Appendix M), specific requirements for effective adaptive management include: *clearly defined 

measurable outcomes; * indicators used to measure whether outcomes are being reached; * defined 

trigger points that initiate a change in management; * disclosure of potential risks involved; * specific 

monitoring and assessment plan describing frequency of monitoring, assessment protocols, and who will 

conduct and pay for monitoring. NEPA standards regarding adaptive management are quite clear. NEPA 

Pinedale RMP A27-29 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

requires that the effectiveness of mitigation measures be described and analyzed in detail in order to 

justify reliance on mitigation for reducing environmental impacts. Simply identifying mitigation 

measures, without analyzing the effectiveness of the measures, violates NEPA. Agencies must “analyze 

the mitigation measures in detail [and] explain how effective the measures would be a mere listing of 

mitigation measures is insufficient to qualify as the reasoned discussion required by NEPA.” Northwest 

Indian Cemetery Protective Association v. Peterson, 764 F. 2d 581, 588 (9th Cir. 1985), rev’d on other 

grounds 485 U.S. 439 (1988). NEPA also directs that the “possibility of mitigation” should not be relied 

upon as a means to avoid further environmental analysis. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s 

National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1125 (10th Cir. 2002). 

Recommendation: The Draft Pinedale RMP must clearly spell out under what circumstances and when 

adaptive management principles will be applied (not just: “where feasible,” “when possible,” etc.); the 

monitoring requirements; the agency’s ability to measure outcome attainment; commitment of the agency 

to fund monitoring and follow through on adaptive measures; and the commitment of regulators and 

stakeholders to the adaptive management approach. If the Draft Pinedale RMP is not revised to provide 

these details, it will be contravening CEQ guidance V see: The NEPA Task Force Report to the Council 

on Environmental Quality: Modernizing NEPA Implementation, p. 46-49 (Sep. 2003), 

http://www.nepa.gov/ntf/report/pdftoc.html. 

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. It is 

not possible to predict the actual availability of funding and personnel to carry out implementation; 

however, BLM intends to implement the plan as written. The RMP provides the objectives for 

management and allocates uses that would be allowed in particular areas. Specific mitigation, monitoring, 

and adaptive measures would be dependent on site-specific projects or proposals and would be 

determined during the project approval process

Comment: The Upper Green River Valley Coalition has made a responsible energy development 

proposal which should be seriously considered and adopted.

Response: To the extent that the recommendations of the Upper Green River Valley Coalition fell within 

the scope of the RMP, they were incorporated into the alternatives in the draft EIS.

Comment: We asked in the scoping comments signed by Wyoming Outdoor Council, Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance, and other conservation groups on April 7, 2003, that specific attention be directed 

to the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that leasing, exploration, and development of oil and gas 

resources will have on air quality, water quality, and wildlife. We stressed that an ecosystem-wide study 

of impacts was critical, including consideration of connected, cumulative and similar actions. This has not 

occurred. Although the planning area covers a vast area, it is not isolated. Adjacent planning areas have 

activities which are having, and will continue to have, significant impacts on the planning area. Shutting 

one’s eyes to these foreseeable impacts now will only compound conflicts and problems in the future. We 

request that BLM in the FEIS fully address these matters with supplemental environmental analysis. 

Response: The cumulative impact analysis in the final EIS is intended to reveal these impacts and 

interrelations.

Comment: I strongly encourage the BLM to put the RMP on hold until the PAPA SEIS is both finalized 

by the BLM and also reviewed by the relevant tribunals.

A27-30 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

Response: It is not necessary to finalize the Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA) Supplemental EIS 

prior to completion of the RMP ROD. The PAPA Supplemental EIS is being crafted to comply with the 

RMP.

Comment: The BLM should ensure that the Final EIS and revised RMP for the Pinedale Resource Area 

are consistent with the policies of other governmental entities. Section 202 of the FLPMA requires the 

BLM to “coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management...with the land use planning and 

management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local 

governments.”93 In its FLPMA regulations and Handbook, the BLM commits to avoiding inconsistencies 

with the resource-related plans, policies, and programs of other governmental entities.94 Sections 101 and 

102 of the National Environmental Policy Act similarly require the BLM to prepare analyses and 

documentation “in cooperation with State and local governments” and other agencies with jurisdiction by 

law or special expertise.95 To comply with these statutory requirements, the BLM should join other 

federal agencies in implementing the national policy toward the deployment of wireless communications 

infrastructure on federal lands.96 

Response: BLM has worked with cooperating agencies at the state and local level throughout the 

development of the draft EIS. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (of 1976) (FLPMA) 

requires that BLM coordinate with and incorporate the land use plans of other federal, state, and local 

agencies and governments “to the extent consistent with the laws governing and administration of the 

public lands”, “to the extent practical”, and “to the extent consistent with Federal law and the purposes of 

this Act (FLPMA)”. BLM considered local and state plans and policies in developing the alternatives.

Comment: The BLM also should coordinate its Final EIS and revised RMP for the Pinedale Resource 

Area with local governments. As discussed above, Union has received requests for improved coverage, 

emergency communications, and enhanced 911 service from local governmental entities in several 

portions of its service area. 

Response: BLM has worked with cooperating agencies at the state and local level throughout the 

development of the draft EIS. FLPMA requires that BLM coordinate with and incorporate the land use 

plans of other federal, state, and local agencies and governments “to the extent consistent with the laws 

governing and administration of the public lands”, “to the extent practical”, and “to the extent consistent 

with Federal law and the purposes of this Act (FLPMA)”. BLM considered local and state plans and 

policies in developing the alternatives.

Comment: • Electronic filing, processing, and approval of APDs and Sundry Notices should be 

encouraged in order to reduce the amount of data entry done by BLM staff because it would allow more 

time to be devoted to processing.

Response: This comment is outside the scope of the RMP.

Comment: The Draft co-mingles the plan and the analysis of its impacts together. While planning may 

have been done this way in the 80’s, given the extent of mineral development and impacts that have 

already occurred, as well as future mineral sprawl activities already approved and under consideration 

presently in the PRMP area, this approach is inappropriate.

Response: NEPA requires that the alternatives and impact analyses be contained in the EIS. 

Comment: When the last PRMP data was gathered decades ago, there was no energy boom in progress, 

and that changes everything. Under the current circumstances the approach and the method for this effort 

should have been quite different. We suggest that the BLM could have presented a draft plan, and then 

Pinedale RMP A27-31 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

accepted comments and prepared a revision to the draft plan that reflected the public comments. An 

appropriately comprehensive DEIS then should have been prepared to assess a set of alternatives that 

reflected both the actual current conditions and, just as important, the conditions that will accompany the 

already approved, explosive growth in the number of wells.

Response: BLM used the best available data in formulating the draft EIS. BLM has presented a draft EIS 

for public comment, of which this is one. BLM has analyzed the public comments and used the input in 

formulating the final EIS and the Proposed RMP. It would not have been appropriate to present a draft 

plan without first completing the accompanying impact analysis found in the draft EIS and comparing the 

draft to other alternatives.

Comment: SDSBT’s conclusion is that both this process and this document are flawed. BLM needs to 

take seriously its multiple use responsibilities under federal law, recognize in this process the impacts that 

have already taken place and that will occur based on decisions already made, announced and pending, 

and recast this plan and the process used to develop a new draft of it. A new draft PRMP and separate 

DEIS is needed. In a rational world, this process would not even be re-started until there was a 

comprehensive study of the surface and ground-water resources of the entire planning area, particularly of 

the parts of the area where there has never been any evaluation of the water resource situation by any 

level of government. (See SDSBT comments DEIS Eagle Prospect, and SDSBT’s proposed Surface and 

Ground Water Study for the Eagle Prospect impact area.) 

Response: The alternatives in the EIS provide a balance of uses across the planning area. BLM must 

honor the rights of oil and gas leaseholders. The alternatives present multiple use through providing areas 

that would not be available for leasing and would not be developed during the life of the plan. The best 

available data were used in formulating the alternatives and completing the impact analysis.

Comment: Where is the analysis of the human settlement component of the planning area? The plan does 

not acknowledge human population, communities and housing growth in the planning area. (See SDSBT 

comments on the Eagle Prospect DEIS, previously referenced.) 

Response: The entire impact analysis considers impact on the human environment, as required by NEPA. 

Impacts related to population, communities, housing, and other socioeconomic issues are found in Section 

4.10, on page 4-109 of the draft EIS.

Comment: Page 4-2, Section 4.1.1 Types of Impacts, sentence two of the first paragraph states that: 

“Although impacts may be perceived as positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse), those determinations 

are left for the reader of this document to make.” Comment – This statement is absurd. Very few readers 

have the training and experience to judge whether or not impacts are positive or negative in the context of 

BLM’s mandate to manage multiple resources on their lands. As the land management agency, it is 

BLM’s responsibility to make positive or negative judgment calls on impacts. 

Response: On the contrary, each individual can and will determine whether impacts are positive or 

negative. For example, closure of roads in a certain area would be a negative impact on off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) operators, but a positive impact on horseback or hiking recreationists. 

Comment: There are three statements of very specific facts cited in this paragraph that are not linked to 

literature citations. These include statements made regarding the results of studies conducted at Riley 

Ridge, Lake Ridge, and Snider Basin. Not only is this an unprofessional way to represent data, but it also 

deprives readers of their right to know the sources of BLM’s information. 

Response: The citation appears on page 4-186 of the draft EIS.

A27-32 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

Comment: Also, the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), BLM’s organic law relative to its 

mission and purpose, establishes a requirement to fully protect the natural environment. “[I]t is the policy 

of the United States that—the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of 

scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and 

archeological values; . . . that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals . . . 

.” 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8). BLM is required to manage the public lands under a multiple use mandate, 

which requires among other things the “harmonious and coordinated management of the various 

resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the 

environment . . . .” Id. § 1702(c). And last, “[i]n managing the public lands the Secretary [of the Interior] 

shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation 

of the [public] lands.” 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b). (portions of this paragraph appear in comments submitted 

elsewhere by GYC and others.) Thus the function of big game winter ranges and birthing areas may not 

be sacrificed by a single, dominant conversion of the landscape to industrial purposes.

Response: The alternatives in the EIS attempt to provide a balance of uses across the planning area. BLM 

must honor the rights of oil and gas leaseholders. The alternatives present multiple use through providing 

areas that would not be available for leasing and would not be developed during the life of the plan. BLM 

cannot prohibit development of existing valid oil and gas leases in areas of big game winter ranges and 

parturition areas.

Comment: Conclusion: The Pinedale RMP/EIS is fatally flawed in that it lacks meaningful, enforceable 

ecological analysis and criteria. This failure leaves the public with no confidence that BLM’s mandate for 

accelerated restoration, sustainable management and protection of values will be met. We believe the 

process has been biased and the RMP will perpetuate a process that will continue to be open to bias and 

misinformation. Recent reports by the Interior Departments’ Inspector General regarding Endangered 

Species Act listings show political manipulation and abandonment of objective science. Similarly, during 

the recent preparation of BLM’s revised grazing regulations, BLM scientists spoke out about their science 

being suppressed or altered to change the meaning of their conclusions. BLM must restore integrity to the 

process and demonstrate an ability to enforce, monitor and manage uses, otherwise those activities that 

can’t be monitored or managed must be ended.

Response: The issues brought up in the comment are outside the scope of the RMP revision.

Comment: This deal, we need about 60 days or more to understand this. I’ve been plowing through it for 

the last two weeks. I get irritable. My family doesn’t talk to me. I don’t understand this stuff. There’s a lot 

going on here. And most people I’ve talked to can’t figure out whether I’m talking about the BLM RMP 

that we’re here for or the Anticline Supplemental Impact Statement that just got done. And in talking to 

ranchers, our season’s about a month early right now, so people I know, they don’t have time to even look 

at this right now. They’re calving. They’re trying to get water on. We’re in drought. So this is a really 

inconvenient time to get any meaningful kind of input from anybody, I think.

Response: The comment period was open from February 16 through June 18, 2007, a total of 122 days. 

This included an extension of 32 days beyond the standard 90-day comment period.

Comment: PAGE: I SECTION: Summary RECOMMENDED CHANGE: • Livestock grazing 

management • Maintaining viable communities and preserving custom and culture EXPLANATION: 

These are two important planning issues that have been omitted. They are identified in the Management 

Situation Analysis (MSA) so were part of the original issues raised to BLM. 

Response: The MSA was developed prior to the scoping process. The issues mentioned in the comment 

were not identified as major planning issues during the scoping process.

Pinedale RMP A27-33 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

Comment: I think there’s a little bit of a lack of specifics in the RMP, time frames are a little bit -- a little 

bit uncertain. The winter range stipulation is a little bit uncertain. The re-vegetation reclamation stuff 

needs to be spelled out exactly before it’s delved into. Some of the wildlife things as well are a little bit 

uncertain.

Response: The winter range stipulation would run from November 15 to April 30 in the Proposed Plan. 

Specific revegetation and reclamation requirements need to be tied to a specific proposal or project so that 

specific needs and methods can be assessed.

Comment: For the RMP EIS, the BLM should not limit consideration to effects that may occur under the 

life of this Plan but should consider long-term effects. 

Response: The impact analysis is intended to reveal impacts that may extend beyond the life of the RMP.

Comment: Overall, Alternative 3 is overly restrictive, unnecessarily limits oil and gas development in the 

Pinedale Resource Area and should be eliminated from further consideration: As discussed in more detail 

below, oil and gas development is the primary source of employment and tax revenue in southwest 

Wyoming. The BLM’s adoption of Alternative 3 would have devastating economic Impacts upon the 

region, State of Wyoming, and even the nation. Oil and gas development, even on existing leases, would 

be significantly hampered by the BLM’s Management decisions for Lands and Realty, Minerals, Soils, 

Transportation, Visual Resumes, and Wildlife Resources Management decisions. Although EnCana 

understands the importance of having a wide range of alternatives to satisfy the requirements of NEPA, 

the BLM must not adopt Alternative 3.

Response: As required by NEPA, BLM considered a reasonable range of alternatives in the draft EIS.

Comment: In contravention of 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24, Chapter 4 of the RMP DEIS does not cite a single 

scientific reference or published study that would support any of the generalized discussion of impacts.6

Response: Impacts were quantified to the extent possible using the best available data. Where specific 

data are not available, impacts are presented in a qualitative manner which may provide a more general 

comparison between the alternatives.

Comment: The discrepancy between the RMP DEIS projections and the Jonah and PAPA EIS 

projections may be due to the fact that the documents used different lifetimes. The former limited 

consideration to 2020 while the latter two documents included projected development out to 2025. Why 

has the BLM limited the RMP EIS scope of analysis to 2020? When the new RMP is finally issued it will 

be 2008 or 2009. This new Plan will almost certainly not be revised until after 2020. The existing RMP 

was issued in 1988 and it will be at least 20 years old when the new RMP is issued. The forthcoming 

RMP can therefore be expected to last until sometime around 2030 and possibly beyond.

Response: The analysis was carried through 2020 to avoid continually changing the frame of reference 

for analysis while the draft EIS was being prepared.

Comment: Mentioned in many parts of this document, BLM coordinates with other federal, state, and 

local agencies. But a holistic approach to resource management which might be expected in a long-term 

comprehensive document like this is not mentioned here.

Response: While cooperating agencies are involved in the BLM planning processes, BLM retains 

decisionmaking authority on BLM-administered public lands.

A27-34 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

Comment: The remainder of the RMP DEIS’s management direction for waters and watersheds is 

specific to each alternative. Before proceeding to discuss my concerns with the alternative-specific 

direction I will address a few concerns about how that direction was presented for public review. During 

the past 20 years I have reviewed countless EISs and EAs; the total number is certainly in the triple digits. 

Even so, it was exceedingly difficult for me to compare the proposed management direction for the 

various alternatives because the RMP Draft EIS does not present any meaningful comparisons of how the 

management direction for water resources varies between alternatives. The water-related management 

direction for Alternative 1 is presented on pages 2-34 and 2-35 of the DEIS. The water-related direction 

for Alternative 2 is presented on pages 2-67 through 2-69. The direction for Alternative 3 is presented on 

pages 2-96 through 2-98. And the direction for Alternative 4 (BLM’s proposed RMP direction) is 

presented on pages 2-139 through 2-142. One has to flip back and forth between these pages to figure out 

if water-related management direction embodied in one alternative was also included in other alternatives. 

It is like trying to read four different sets of fine print without any explanation or table to summarize the 

differences. If it was difficult for me - a person with years of experience reviewing NEPA documents - to 

figure what was being proposed for just one narrow set of issues (those related to waters), imagine how 

difficult it was for members of the general public - people who have never read a NEPA document - to 

wade through the entire DEIS and try to make sense of the four alternatives. I have no idea why BLM 

only circulated a DEIS without an actual draft RMP to accompany it, but this approach really is not 

workable for the public.

Response: A “draft RMP” would presuppose that the preferred alternative would be adopted, which is not 

the case. BLM can choose management actions from each alternative in formulating the Proposed Plan 

for the final EIS.

Comment: The CEQ NEPA regulations, which are binding on the BLM, require that the EIS present 

alternatives in “comparative form” to “sharply define the issues and provide] a clear basis for choice 

among the options by the decisionmaker and the public.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. The DEIS does not meet 

this requirement. It does not provide a clear basis of choice because the differences between the 

alternatives are not sharply defined. To address this problem, an in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9,. I 

am hereby petitioning the BLM to prepare a revised or supplemental Draft EIS that presents comparative 

tables of the management direction differences between the alternatives. Such a table should be prepared 

for each management issue/resource (e.g., water, wildlife, soils, air quality, visual quality, etc.) and show 

which goals, objectives, standards and guidelines would be incorporated into each alternative. Actually, I 

believe the BLM should prepare a separate document that contains the entire proposed RMP (Alternative 

4) - just as it would look if selected as the final RMP - with comparative tables for each management 

issue showing the parallel management direction embodied in each EIS alternative.

Response: BLM analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives in the draft EIS. Because of differences in 

the format and approach between the alternatives, it was not possible to present them in a tabular form. 

Such a table would have been well over 100 pages long and could be difficult to comprehend. There is no 

“Proposed RMP” until at least the final EIS stage of the planning process.

Comment: Based on the language in the RMP DEIS, it seems BLM has decided honoring all the 

commitments is not worth doing.27 Based on the discretionary language in the RMP. DEIS, it appears 

BLM’s “solution” to the commitment “problem” is not to honor the commitments the agency has made to 

protect the environment, but to do away with “commitments” altogether and make all management 

direction in the new RMP discretionary. This is also supported by the fact that BLM has been actively 

working to undo commitments made in the 1988 RMP and subsequent project decisions (e.g., PAPA 

ROD) in order to allow greater gas drilling in the PRA. For example, BLM has recently proposed doing 

away with stipulations to prevent drilling in wildlife crucial winter range during the winter season and has 

also proposed to allow drilling in the Mesa Breaks area. If the BLM did not honor binding requirements 

Pinedale RMP A27-35 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

made in previous decisions, why should the public expect the agency to comply with new direction that is 

completely discretionary? 

Response: The RMP revision does not negate any previous commitments made by BLM.

Comment: These are not the only omissions in the RMP DEIS. There are other major gaps in the 

management direction needed to protect resources in the PRA. For example, the DEIS states: “As other 

BMPs for nonpoint sources of water pollution are developed, they would be incorporated into the 

guidance for this plan where they conform to RMP objectives.” RMP DEIS at 2-35. This indicates the 

current set of BMPs is incomplete and that additional measures would be developed after the public 

process on the new RMP is concluded. The BLM should make a good-faith effort to present all 

conceivable management direction for public review before the RMP is finalized. 

Response: No matter how complete the current set of BMPs is, there is always room for the advance of 

science and technology. This statement is intended to allow for improved methods to be added to the 

BMP list as they are developed. 

Comment: The direction in Appendix 25 purports to deal with “contaminant releases (hazardous 

materials and petroleum) that pose imminent danger to human health and safety or the environment. The 

Pinedale planning area [sic] maintains an Oil, Gas, and Hazardous Substances Spill Plan that outlines 

specific guidance for contaminant releases.” DEIS, Appendix 25 at A25-1. Beyond the fact that the Spill 

Plan was not attached to the DEIS for public review and comment, none of the language in Appendix 25 

actually requires BLM to take any action in response to hazmat spills.29 In addition, Appendix 25 only 

deals with catastrophic hazmat releases that pose imminent danger to people or the environment. It does 

not address long-term low-level releases or even major short-term releases that would pose health risks or 

other environmental problems in the future. For example, Appendix 25 would not apply to the benzene 

contamination recently found in ground water wells in the PRA gas fields because, even though the 

benzene exceeds safe levels for drinking water, it does not pose an immediate danger to human health. 

Benzene is a carcinogen, and effects of low-level benzene contamination may not show up for many 

years. The direction in Appendix 25, like the rest of the DEIS, also fails to discuss bonding requirements 

for contamination clean-up. This is a critical omission.

Response: The purpose of BLM’s Hazard Management and Resource Restoration Program is to protect 

public health and the environment by reducing or eliminating risk associated with environmental and 

physical hazards. Although the program’s responsibilities are broad, site-specific situations dictate BLM’s 

authorities and responsibilities. For ground water contamination, for instance, WDEQ has maintained the 

authority for directing clean-up activities. BLM does have an active role in cooperating with WDEQ, but 

would defer clean-up actions and clean-up levels to established state and federal standards. 

As listed in Appendix 25, BLM responsibilities are mandated by various laws and regulations. For 

hazardous substances releases, BLM must follow the procedures outlined in the National Contingency 

Plan and CERCLA. Thus, BLM is recognized as the lead agency for non-emergency hazmat releases. 

Also, pursuant to CERCLA, BLM has the authority to hold responsible parties liable for clean-up actions. 

For spill situations involving permitted actions under the Mineral Leasing Act, 43 CFR Part 3162.5-1(c), 

BLM requires oil or gas operators to take the “...necessary measures, subject to approval by the 

authorized officer, to control and remove pollutants....”

Comment: PAGE: SECTION: General RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: Appendix 

should add that monitoring will incorporate MOUs with livestock grazing districts and permittees and 

will be done with coordination with cooperating agencies, such as counties and conservation districts. In 

addition, RMP needs to commit to detailed monitoring program, so that it is more than an after-thought.

A27-36 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

Response: Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) for monitoring agreements are outside the scope of the 

RMP. Detailed monitoring must be designed on a site-specific basis, not at the RMP level.

Comment: • The Hazardous Material Release Response Plan should require adequate equipment and 

training be available in Sublette County to immediately respond to any hazardous material spill in the 

PRA, and for private land spills associated with BLM-authorized development. Currently, the Fire 

Departments in the County have only a few certified hazmat technicians, and to my knowledge no 

Department has a fully equipped hazmat response unit. If a major spill occurs in a surface water in the 

County, significant spread of contaminants would occur before the spill could be contained.

Response: Although BLM does not have the authority to dictate county personnel availability, there are 

hazmat response teams in other counties that could respond, if necessary. Additionally, various operators 

have trained emergency response personnel. EPA Region 8 (Denver) also has response teams that could 

be employed for significant releases.

Comment: I am formally requesting that these comments (and those submitted by others) be included in 

their entirety in an appendix to the Final EIS, as was historically done by the agency. Since the BLM now 

distributes EIS’s primarily by electronic means (e.g., PDF files), publishing public comments in their 

entirety rather than as summaries or sound-bite interpretations does not cost the agency any more.

Response: Due to the large volume of comments received on BLM planning documents, it is not possible 

to include them in their entirety in the final EIS. All comments received are available for public review at 

the Pinedale Field Office. Although BLM has historically included comment letters in their entirety in 

final EIS documents, there is no requirement to do so.

Comment: PAGE: 4-148, SECTION: 4.12.2, EXPLANATION: EIS discussion omits environmental 

impacts and instead lists perceived benefits to flow from Alternative 4. Previous subchapters in Chapter 4 

focused on adverse environmental impacts. But those chapters where IDT member is an advocate, the 

focus shifts to benefits to resource. Thus Chapter 4 is quite uneven.

Response: Impacts may be positive or negative. It is legitimate to list benefits as “impacts”. To be 

complete, the document needs to reveal all impacts, not just negative impacts.

Comment: PAGE: 4-180 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: General Comments 

EXPLANATION: Chapter 4 §4.17.1 is fundamentally flawed because impacts assume that land actions 

are implemented without RMP and provisions found therein. These are theoretical impacts assuming 

unconstrained land uses and have no place in Chapter 4, which addresses direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts. The same discussion entirely omits the environmental impacts attributed to wildlife and habitat 

management. As written for impacts common to all alternatives Chapter 4 §4.17.1 does not conform to 

RMP and must be significantly revised throughout. Bias of authors against all other multiple uses comes 

through in every page. Chapter 4 discussion does not address RMP impacts in terms of interaction with 

other multiple uses. If Chapter 4 did then it would need to address habitat capacity and limits; risk of 

brucellosis transmission from feedgrounds, impacts on maintaining Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands, especially on feedgrounds and adjacent public lands, hunter success in light of limited and 

closed OHV areas and impacts on game numbers. Rest of EIS does attempt to discuss resource tradeoffs 

and this section does not. It appears that BLM assumes it must accept WGFD population targets without 

assessing habitat capability and without disclosing likely conflicts with other resource commitments, e.g. 

AUMs. FLPMA requires BLM to protect habitat and RMP cannot fail to do so based on commitments 

made in MOU to accept WGFD target populations and plans. Chapter 4 does not disclose or discuss 

scientific uncertainty regarding game (elk) sensitivity to nonthreatening versus threatening human 

activities, factors leading to decline in sage grouse numbers, which grouse are still hunted, and impacts of 

Pinedale RMP A27-37 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

VRM classifications on efforts to manage for all resources. The local governments have provided BLM 

with reports on elk management (Taylor 2005); sage grouse (Taylor 2006) and specific comments to EIS. 

Ex. B, Taylor, R. Taylor Environmental

Response: The impacts described in Section 4.17.3 of the draft EIS are those that generally can be 

expected when implementing the types of actions found in the alternatives. This discussion is reasonable 

and applies to the RMP. The analysis utilizes the best available data. Elk are not the major big game issue 

on the BLM-administered public lands in the Pinedale planning area. Elk summer on United States 

Forest Service (USFS) land and, with the exception of native winter range in the South La Barge area, 

reside on feedgrounds in the winter. Big game most impacted by BLM-authorized actions are mule deer 

and pronghorn. In addition, greater sage-grouse are a management concern on BLM-administered public 

lands.

Comment: PAGE: 4-208 to 211 SECTION: 4.17.7 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: 

Local government comments regarding issues raised in §4.17.1 apply here as well.

Response: The impacts described in Section 4.17.3 of the draft EIS are those that generally can be 

expected when implementing the types of actions found in the alternatives. This discussion is reasonable 

and applies to the RMP. The analysis utilizes the best available data. Elk are not the major big game issue 

on the BLM-administered public lands in the Pinedale planning area. Elk summer on USFS land and, 

with the exception of native winter range in the South La Barge area, reside on feedgrounds in the winter. 

Big game most impacted by BLM-authorized actions are mule deer and pronghorn. In addition, greater 

sage-grouse are a management concern on BLM-administered public lands.

Comment: PAGE: 4-219 SECTION: 4.18.3 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: Does not 

document need for NSO.

Response: Analysis of the impacts of not implementing the NSO restriction in other alternatives provides 

the rationale for including it in this alternative. 

Comment: How will the energy companies be able to overcome all the restrictions and stipulations, 

which have been included in alternatives of this plan? It would have been so much better to write a sitespecific EA or EIS later. An RMP needs to be general in nature. Please provide in the final RMP a 

REASON FOR BEING SO SPECIFIC IN A DOCUMENT THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE GENERAL

Response: The alternatives and analysis provided in the draft EIS are appropriate for a land use plan-level 

document. 

Comment: A Resource Management Plan needs to be general in nature. The document you have 

prepared is way to site-specific. This lends itself to putting in many restrictions and stipulations, which 

will be hard if not impossible to follow by the energy companies.

Response: The alternatives and analysis provided in the draft EIS are appropriate for a land use plan-level 

document. 

Comment: Furthermore the numbers you have used in your Reasonable Foreseeable Development are 

outdated. Please look at new data available and adjust your projections.

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

A27-38 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

Comment: An RMP needs to be general in nature and you have made it site-specific. That should be the 

job of an EA or EIS! I also think you need to check the numbers of your Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development section. I am almost certain that they are totally outdated. You need to rework them. I 

understand that the acreage is much larger than initially thought and the field production and well results 

are also.

Response: The alternatives and analysis provided in the draft EIS are appropriate for a land use plan-level 

document. 

Comment: SO IF THE BLM IS GOING TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT LEVEL OF CONSTITUENT 

DETAIL IN THE FINAL RMP, I WANT TO SEE MY COMMENT REFERENCED IN THE FINAL 

AND ADDRESSED SPECIFICALLY. HERE IS THE QUESTION: HOW (SPECIFICALLY) DOES 

THE BLM JUSTIFY SUCH A LEVEL OF DETAIL IN THE RMP AND IS SUCH A LEVEL OF 

DETAIL LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE?

Response: The alternatives and analysis provided in the draft EIS are appropriate for a land use plan-level 

document. 

Comment: Please redo the reasonable foreseeable development plan using updated numbers before you 

move forward with the RMP.

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: Another point to note is that Old information showing projected potential in the resource 

areas needs to be updated based on new findings and current field production and well results. New data 

severely affects acreage and percentages. YOU 

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: 1. The RMP is supposed to be general and non-prescriptive in nature. Alternative 3 is so 

prescriptive in some cases that is should be more like an EIS. In the final RMP either fix this issue or 

explain why so much detail is used in a document that is supposed to be general.

Response: It is an EIS. The alternatives and analysis provided in the draft EIS are appropriate for a land 

use plan-level document. 

Corrections/Changes to Document 

Comment: PAGE: 2-139 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE to add definitions AVOID 

CLOSURE EXPLANATION: EPCA requires specificity as to impacts on mineral development and 

energy transportation. RMP needs to define avoid and closure. IM 2003- 233 and IM 2003-234 governing 

integration of planning with EPCA requires documentation that terms and conditions are the least 

restrictive. 

Response: “Avoidance areas” and “closed” are defined in the Glossary of the draft EIS and final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 2-15 SECTION:2.3.17 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE • Instances where 

two or more resources of interest to cooperating agencies are in conflict. For example, significant surface 

Pinedale RMP A27-39 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

disturbance in identified habitat for T&E or State Sensitive Species or livestock grazing allotment. 

EXPLANATION:

Response: This change has been incorporated in the final EIS.

Comment: For tourists passing through Sublette County, the Hoback Rim, the North Beaver Creek 

Drainage is either the first or last impression they will get of the Upper Green River Basin. It is not 

surprising that the highway crosses the Columbia/Colorado River divide at this point. The first white man 

in Sublette County stopped there to hunt in 1811 on their way to Oregon. They were following the trail of 

Indians who were following the big game migration trails. This migration still goes on today. Much of the 

game in the Hoback Basin uses this access. I have photographed the antelope migration and discovered 

their migration trail across our property. Likewise, we observe the deer, elk, and moose migrating through 

the area. There’s an elk feed ground on the west side of the highway 189, 191 and another at the foot of 

Black Butte near the Green River. The elk, moose, deer, and antelope all have their young in this locality. 

There’s a newly discovered large sage grouse lek in this area. My wife Jean and I and two neighbors have 

put conservation easements on 1,100 acres on the Rim to protect the scenic and wildlife values. Jean and I 

just bought 78 acres more to keep it from being developed. Presently there’s a moratorium on oil and gas 

leasing in this area and the Upper Green. The BLM recommended Resource Management Plan opens this 

whole area and the Upper Green for oil and gas leaking -- leasing. How much does Sublette County have 

to sacrifice? Do we have to sacrifice all our wildlife, scenic vistas, water sheds, and air quality for natural 

gas? There should be no gas and oil leasing on the Rim or Upper Green. No surface occupancy has too 

many possibilities for disturbance. It appears the only concessions to full gas development the BLM’s 

recommending is to subdivisions and the Wind River front where there isn’t any gas. This is a personal 

comment, but it can and will be backed up by facts, figures, maps, and photographs. I’ve been told by 

people that have had experience that these public comments have not affected any BLM plan that’s in the 

draft stage that they’ve noticed. I hope that’s not true. We need to make changes. Thanks.

Response: Updated big game migration and sage-grouse lek data have been incorporated into the final 

EIS.

Comment: 1. The Bureau has applied a performance-based approach to the implementation of protective 

measures under some portions of the Pinedale RMP. It is the Service’s understanding that by taking this 

approach the Bureau may or may not apply protective measures in certain circumstances (except those 

involving resources specifically protected by current laws [e.g., endangered and threatened species, 

cultural resources, etc.]). The Service is concerned that such an approach could lead to less consistent 

application of protective measures and management of sensitive resources. The Service encourages the 

Bureau to carefully evaluate all potential ramifications of implementing a “performance-based” approach 

prior to approval of the revised Pinedale RMP.

Response: BLM intends to protect raptors to the fullest extent of our management authority in all four of 

the designated areas to prevent a violation under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The final EIS has been 

changed to apply performance-based management to the project development scale, where it is most 

appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: PAGE: 2-13 SECTION: 2.3.16 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Replace “compensation” with 

compensatory or off-site. Compensation mitigation is not the correct term. 

Response: The term has been changed in the final EIS.

Comment: To summarize, the Upper Green River Valley Coalition would like to see maintenance of 

seasonal and surface wildlife protections where oil and gas is developed required and proven management 

A27-40 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

practices that truly mitigate and protect our wildlife, air, and water quality, a comprehensive habitat 

assessment that maps and categorizes all wildlife habitat, confirmed non-waiveable special management 

area designations where existing non-developed oil and gas leases will be allowed to expire, be traded, or 

sold and permanently retired from leasing.

Response: Seasonal stipulations protect individuals, not wildlife habitats. Development permitted in noncritical seasons will be there in the crucial range next year. In areas where development reaches the point 

that habitats are not functional or are abandoned by wildlife, seasonal stipulations are not effective.

Comment: Whatever BLM’s motives, making management direction discretionary will only make 

problems worse, not prevent them. Therefore, I am requesting that BLM delete any language from the 

new RMP (and other alternatives evaluated in the EIS) which may state or imply that management 

direction would be discretionary. There must be a solid base of obligatory resource protection standards, 

mitigation and monitoring requirements established in the RMP. During project planning, if BLM 

subsequently decides additional safeguards are needed - to address site-specific hazards - the agency can 

add them to the project decision.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: For the new RMP, the BLM has decided to shift away from prescriptive-based direction and 

rely on something called “performance-based” direction. See RMP DEIS, Appendix 3, page A3-1. In fact, 

all of the alternative RMPs the BLM evaluated in the DEIS -except for the “no action” alternative 

(continuing management under the ’88 RMP direction) - rely on performance-based management 

direction. What does “performance-based” management mean? The DEIS is cloudy on this issue, perhaps 

deliberately so. Although the discussion is ambiguous, it seems BLM is ‘proposing’ not to set limits on 

activities, but to merely “emphasize the intent or outcome of mitigation.” Id. at A3-2. “If it can be shown 

that the outcome is achieved, then the land use plan goal is achieved.” Id. at A3-1.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: The DEIS asserts the “addition of performance-based stipulations and standards will provide 

the BLM with greater flexibility in protecting physical, environmental and cultural resources.” Id. 

Actually, discretionary performance-based stipulations will provide BLM with greater flexibility to harm 

the environment. Indeed, the DEIS concedes: “the greater flexibility afforded by the proposed 

performance-based lease stipulations and operating standards ... should result in the need for fewer 

exceptions.” RMP DEIS, Appendix A3, page A3-3. Fewer exceptions means there would be fewer actual 

limitations on ground disturbing activities. Furthermore, the DEIS asserts the “modification from 

prescriptive-based stipulations toward performance-based stipulations will allow consistent application 

across the field office....” Id. This is absurd. Having greater flexibility to ignore or adjust standards and 

mitigation requirements from project to project won’t result in greater consistency; it will result in greater 

chaos.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: The DEIS also, suggests this “flexible” performance-based approach is needed to “help BLM 

make decisions effectively by using a rigorous combination of management, research, and monitoring so 

that credible information is gained and management activities can be modified, over time, based on 

continuous experience.” Id. at A3-4. This is also absurd. The BLM has always had this ability - and has 

Pinedale RMP A27-41 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

had the discretion to amend the 1988 RMP at any time - when any new information or experiences 

revealed a need to change. The BLM just never exercised this discretion. Prescription-based management 

is just as “adaptive” as performance-based management; the only difference is prescription-based 

management actually sets measurable and enforceable restrictions on activities, while performance-based 

management does not.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: For the foregoing reasons - and because BLM has already demonstrated it cannot be trusted 

with the greater flexibility associated with performance-based management - I am asking the agency to (i) 

abandon the performance-based approach and (ii) ensure the new RMP is based on prescriptive-based 

management direction that is measurable and not discretionary. In the next chapter of these comments 

(starting on page 81), I present some prescriptive management direction that, in my professional opinion, 

is needed to protect water resources in the PRA.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: Appendix 3 (page A3-3) contains the following “guideline”: 1. Surface Disturbance 

Mitigation Guideline Surface disturbance would be prohibited in any of the following areas or conditions, 

unless or until a permittee or his designated representative and the surface management agency (SMA), 

prior to development, arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts: a. Construction 

with frozen material or during periods when the soil material is saturated or when watershed damage is 

likely to occur. Because this is just a guideline, it carries no weight; BLM would be free to ignore it. 

Further more, it does not prohibit impacts; it only requires the permittee to come up with a “plan for 

mitigation of anticipated impacts” which presumably would not be subject to public comment.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: PAGE: SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: General Comment Disclose effects on 

mountain bike use. EXPLANATION: Definition of all-terrain vehicle in Glossary includes mountain 

bikes. BLM must disclose the closures of trails to mountain biking and this is not done.

Response: Impacts on OHV use have been expanded to discuss impacts on mountain bike use.

Comment: PAGE: G-2 CHANGE: AVOIDANCE AREA – Areas with sensitive resource values where 

rights-of-way and Section 302 permits, leases and easements would be strongly discouraged. 

Authorizations made in avoidance areas would have to be compatible with the purpose for which the area 

was designated and not be otherwise feasible on lands outside the avoidance area. This term does not 

connote an absolute situation, but rather, a whenever-reasonably possible circumstance. 

EXPLANATION: Sentence taken from draft statewide public land surface use definitions should be 

added to clarify the term does not impose blanket restriction. CEQ rules identify avoidance as one of five 

mitigation measures. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20.

Response: The definition has been amended in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-4 CHANGE: COMPENSATORY[ION](STRIKEOUT) MITIGATION - 

EXPLANATION: Per BLM IM No. 2005-069, proper term is compensatory mitigation.

A27-42 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

Response: The term has been changed in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-6 CHANGE: DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION – [A vegetation community 

objective usually dominated by a mix of native shrubs and grasses. This vegetative state is usually mid to 

late seral.](STRIKEOUT) A future land or resource condition that achieves a set of compatible 

multiresource goals and objectives. EXPLANATION: Desired future condition applies to soil, water and 

air quality as well and should not be limited to a specific vegetation objective without taking into account 

an ecological site’s capability.

Response: The definition has been updated in the final EIS, as suggested in the comment.

Comment: PAGE: G-7 CHANGE: [DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITY – See SURFACE (HUMAN) 

DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITY](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Per ACTIVITIES DISRUPTIVE TO 

WILDLIFE (above) and SURFACE (HUMAN) DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITY (below)

Response: The comment is unclear regarding the specific suggestion for document change.

Comment: PAGE: G-8 CHANGE: FEDERAL LAND[S](STRIKEOUT) POLICY AND 

MANAGEMENT OF 1976 EXPLANATION: Typographical error

Response: This change has been made in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-8 CHANGE: Federal [A](STRIKEOUT)agency documents EXPLANATION: 

Typographical error

Response: This typographical error has been corrected in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-10 CHANGE: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - A site specific plan written to 

implement decisions made in a land use plan. [An implementation plan usually selects and applies best 

management practices to meet land use plan objectives.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: BLM policy 

only requires integration of best management practices (BMPs) Application for onshore oil and gas and 

geothermal operations. IM 2004-194; IM 2004-110, Change 1. Even in those circumstances, applications 

of BMPs are not a “one size fits all approach” but depend on circumstances of specific project. Id. The 

definition should be revised to remove reference to BMPs because it is a term of art, that is advisory, not 

regulatory, which may or may not be integrated into a proposed action..

Response: BLM feels this definition is adequate.

Comment: PAGE: G-11 CHANGE: [INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT – Intensive management includes 

the use of proper distance restrictions, seasonal or timing restrictions, rehabilitation standards, and the 

application of the Wyoming Mitigation Guidelines for Surface Disturbing and Disruptive Activities to 

adequately protect the resources for which intensive management is applied. Intensive management 

actions would be applied with the goal of maintaining or enhancing sensitive resources (plant 

communities, wildlife habitats, archeological or paleontological resources, etc.).](STRIKEOUT) 

EXPLANATION: Intensive management practices are activity level decisions made on a site specific 

basis such as in allotment management plans or oil and gas permitting. As defined, the term provides no 

measurable objectives or criteria and does not belong at the plan level. BLM Manual H-1601-1 states 

plainly that a “land use plan must express desired outcomes in terms of specific goals, standards and 

objectives.”

Response: BLM feels this definition is adequate.

Pinedale RMP A27-43 
Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous Final EIS 

Comment: PAGE: G-13 CHANGE: MANAGEMENT SITUATION ANALYSIS (MSA) – [Assessment 

of the current management direction. It includes a consolidation of existing data needed to analyze and 

resolve identified issues, a description of current BLM management guidance, and a discussion of 

existing problems and opportunities for solving them.](STRIKEOUT) In collaboration with any 

cooperating agencies, an analysis of the inventory data and other information available to determine the 

ability of the resource area to respond to identified issues and opportunities. The analysis of the 

management situation provides, consistent with multiple use principles, the basis for formulating 

reasonable alternatives, including the types of resources for development or protection. EXPLANATION: 

Definition should be revised to conform to regulation which clearly states purpose of MSA requirement 

and provides for collaboration with cooperating agencies. 43 C.F.R. § 1610.4-4.

Response: BLM believes this definition is adequate.

Comment: PAGE: G-13 CHANGE: MONITORING - A program designed to measure changes over time 

with respect to [in](STRIKEOUT) vegetation, watershed health, climate, animal populations and other 

resources on BLM administered land. EXPLANATION: Monitoring evaluates the status of resources and 

effectiveness of management practices over time. Wyoming BLM Land Use Planning, 

www.wy.blm.gov/planning/aboutplan.htm. See also 43 C.F.R. §4100.0-5 (periodic observation).

Response: This change has been made in the final EIS

Comment: PAGE: G-16 CHANGE: [OFF-SITE MITIGATION. See Compensation Mitigation] 

(STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Term already defined under Mitigation definition

Response: It is appropriate to include this reference here.

Comment: PAGE: G-16 CHANGE: [OTHER ACTIVITIES. Seismic activities, maintenance actions 

exceeding eight hours on existing equipment and facilities, repair or reconditioning of rangeland 

improvements that exceed eight hours in duration, or any activity that requires more than eight hours on 

the site. Maintenance actions related to Other Activities: • Leasable, Locatable, and Saleable Mineral 

Activities: • Work over rig • Pipeline repair • Reclamation activities • Range Management: • Fence Repair 

• Stock pond maintenance • Pipeline repair • Reclamation of habitat](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: 

As distinguished from land use plan decisions, activity level decisions are site-specific decisions that 

depend on the circumstances of each case. BLM IM 2004-079. There is no basis to pigeon-hole seismic, 

range and maintenance activities exceeding eight hours to a particular RMP classification.

Response: This definition is not intended to apply to activity level decisions, but to activities other than 

oil and gas exploration and development.

Comment: PAGE: G-18 CHANGE: [PRIME RANCHLAND – AFT defines “prime” ranchland as high 

quality land with desirable wildlife characteristics including proximity to publicly owned lands, yearround water availability, mixed grass and tree cover, and a variety of vegetation.](STRIKEOUT) 

EXPLANATION: Definition created by policy advocacy group American Farmland Trust for 2002 study 

to estimate prime ranchlands (i.e., classic elk wintering ranges) at risk for conversion to residential 

development. The subjective and unproven definition does not fall within the RMP’s purpose and need.

Response: This definition is not needed in the EIS and has been deleted.

Comment: PAGE: G-19 CHANGE: [RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (ROS) – A 

planning process that provides a framework for defining classes of outdoor recreation environments, 

activities, and experience opportunities. The settings, activities, and opportunities for experiences are 

A27-44 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—General/Miscellaneous 

arranged along a continuum or spectrum of six classes: primitive, semiprimitive non-motorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, rural and urban. The resulting analysis defines geographic areas on 

the ground, each of which encompasses one of the six classes.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: ROS is 

not a BLM planning process but a Forest Service approach to resource planning. The Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) was developed by the Forest Service to provide a framework for classifying 

and defining segments of outdoor recreation environments, activities, and experience opportunities. 36 

C.F.R. § 219.21 (2000); Forest Service Manual 2310.

Response: It is not necessary to strike use of the term Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) from the 

EIS. Use of the ROS is common throughout BLM to aid in determining recreation uses and needed 

management.

Pinedale RMP A27-45 
Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA Final EIS 

Policy/NEPA 

General Comment Responses 

Comments: 

• Page 1-15 “The Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages energy efficiency and conservation; 

promotes alternative and renewable energy sources; reduces dependence on foreign sources of 

energy; increases domestic production; modernizes the electrical grid; and encourages the 

expansion of nuclear energy.” Discussion of the categorical exclusions contained in the Energy 

Policy Act as applied to subsequent oil and gas drilling and development is missing from the 

analysis and discussion in the RMP. In reviewing an Application for Permit to Drill (APD), 

Surface Use Plan of Operations, or pipeline application involving a proposed activity that fits into 

one of the five categories, the appropriate CX is to be applied; and it may be presumed that no 

further NEPA analysis is required. 

• In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Act), Section 390(b)(3) allows for a categorical exclusion from 

NEPA analysis for the “drilling an oil or gas well within a developed field for which an approved 

land use plan or any environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA analyzed such drilling 

as a reasonably foreseeable activity, so long as such plan or document was approved within 5 

years prior to the date of spudding the well.” I have made my objections to this provision known 

to Congress and others, in no small part due to representations made by Pinedale Field Office 

personnel regarding their intent to use the provision to clear full-field development projects. 

(Please see my attached letters to the Congressional committees of proper jurisdiction regarding 

this concern.) I remain convinced that land use plan level analysis is wholly inappropriate for the 

authorization of a categorical exclusion, especially since the impacts to wildlife habitat and air 

quality, two resource areas already under significant pressure, would not be fully evaluated if 

categorical exclusions are granted under the cited provision of the Act.

Response: BLM will comply with all laws and regulations. However, noting your concern in using the 

Section 390 categorical exclusions, air quality and wildlife impacts will be evaluated in addition to 

cultural resources and paleontological resources among others. 

Unique Comments: 

Compliance with Laws and Regulations 

Comment: The Record of Decision must comply with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Response: As stated on page 1-14 of the draft EIS, the document was written to comply with energy 

policy including the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Comment: 2. What is the optimal Resource Management Plan for oil and gas development? 

3. Is the record of Decisions acomplaiment with the Mineral Leasing Act? 

a. For NSO designations? 

b. For minimal development areas? 

4. Is the Record of Decision compliant with the Energy Policy Act? 

Response: The ROD will be in compliance with all laws and regulations.

A27-46 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA 

Comment: The Preferred Alternative is not consistent with the mineral leasing act especially in the areas 

designated for "minimal development". The Record of Decision must comply with the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005.

Response: The ROD will be in compliance with all laws and regulations.

Comment: Is this RMP compliant with the 2005 Energy Policy Act? I remember reading about some 

forest plans and other planning documents getting hung up for not being compliant with that act.

Response: All RMP action alternatives are in compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Comment: 3. Is the record of Decision compliment with the Mineral Leasing Act? 

a. For NSO designations? 

b. For minimal development areas? 

4. Is the Record of Decision compliant with the Energy Policy Act? 

Response: The ROD will be in compliance with all laws and regulations.

Comment: A new alternative supporting the new RFD with appropriate resource recovery should be 

developed. A new alternative should be consistent with the Mineral Leasing Act and the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005.

Response: As stated on page 1-14 of the draft EIS, the document was written to comply with energy 

policy including the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Comment: I would like to register my comments on the RMP regarding compliance with the Federal 

Mineral Leasing Act. In compliance with the act, I support: - authorizing the leasing of lands that are 

known or believed to contain oil or gas deposits. - If valuable deposits of oil or gas have been discovered 

within the Pinedale BLM District, the company engaged in the prospecting process is entitled to a lease. - 

Each alternative under consideration for adoption must be in compliance with the Mineral Leasing Act.

Response: Leasing of minerals is a discretionary action. “The Secretary of the Interior is vested by the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 USC 181 et seq. (2000) as amended, with discretionary authority to 

lease or not to lease Federal public land which is otherwise available for oil and gas leasing” (162 IBLA 

2). “An exercise of discretion must be supported by a rational and defensible basis which is set forth in 

the decision, or it will be found to be arbitrary and capricious” (162 IBLA 2). In determining whether or 

not to issue a lease (exercise of discretion), other resource values must be taken into account. The ROD 

will provide a rational and defensible basis for the decision whether or not to lease areas based upon the 

analysis of the alternatives in the EIS. Some resource values can be adequately protected from impacts 

associated with oil and gas development with timing restrictions, some require surface use restrictions, 

and other resource values can only be adequately protected through no leasing. It is BLM policy to utilize 

the least restrictive measure needed to adequately protect the other resources.

Comment: The Federal Mineral Leasing Act allows the Secretary of the Interior to authorize the lease to 

companies who want to develop the area, if they can prove that the Pinedale Anticline are know or 

believed to contain oil or gas deposits. Compliance with this act ensures that the document is legal and it 

also provide for greater degree of environmental protection.

Response: Leasing of minerals is a discretionary action. “The Secretary of the Interior is vested by the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 USC 181 et seq. (2000) as amended, with discretionary authority to 

lease or not to lease Federal public land which is otherwise available for oil and gas leasing” (162 IBLA 

Pinedale RMP A27-47 
Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA Final EIS 

2). “An exercise of discretion must be supported by a rational and defensible basis which is set forth in 

the decision, or it will be found to be arbitrary and capricious” (162 IBLA 2). In determining whether or 

not to issue a lease (exercise of discretion), other resource values must be taken into account. The ROD 

will provide a rational and defensible basis for the decision whether or not to lease areas based upon the 

analysis of the alternatives in the EIS. Some resource values can be adequately protected from impacts 

associated with oil and gas development with timing restrictions, some require surface use restrictions, 

and other resource values can only be adequately protected through no leasing. It is BLM policy to utilize 

the least restrictive measure needed to adequately protect the other resources.

Comment: The Preferred Alternative must be brought into compliance with the Minerals Leasing Act.

Response: All alternatives considered in the draft EIS are reasonable alternatives that comply with all 

mineral policy, including the Mineral Leasing Act.

Comment: The BLM must insure the NSO stipulations and the minimal development designations are 

compliant with the Mineral Lease Act.

Response: All alternatives considered in the draft EIS are reasonable alternatives that comply with all 

mineral policy, including the Mineral Leasing Act.

Comment: Ensure the RMP is compliant with the Mineral Leasing Act and the Energy Policy Act of 

2005.

Response: All alternatives considered in the draft EIS are reasonable alternatives that comply with all 

mineral policy, including the Mineral Leasing Act and the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Comment: What is the optimal Resource Management Plan for oil and gas development? 

Is the record of Decision compliment with the Mineral Leasing Act? 

a. For NSO designations? 

b. For minimal development areas? 

Is the Record of Decision compliant with the Energy Policy Act?

Response: All alternatives considered in the draft EIS are reasonable alternatives that comply with all 

mineral policy, including the Mineral Leasing Act and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. BLM is not 

required to select an alternative that optimizes oil and gas development, but one that provides a balance of 

uses within the planning area.

Comment: I would like to submit my comments on the RMP regarding compliance with the Federal 

Mineral Leasing Act. According to the act, the Secretary is authorized to lease lands that are known or 

believed to contain oil or gas deposits. The Act states that if the permittee establishes to the Secretary’s 

satisfaction that valuable deposits of oil or gas have been discovered within the land embraced in a 

prospecting permit is entitled to a lease of the land. The language in the minimal development section of 

the RMP does comply; by creating the caveat in the minimal development section, the section does meet 

the standards of the Mineral Leasing Act. Ensuring compliance with the act is twofold: it ensures the 

legality of the document and provides for a greater degree of environmental protection.

Response: Leasing of minerals is a discretionary action. “The Secretary of the Interior is vested by the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 USC 181 et seq. (2000) as amended, with discretionary authority to 

lease or not to lease Federal public land which is otherwise available for oil and gas leasing” (162 IBLA 

2). “An exercise of discretion must be supported by a rational and defensible basis which is set forth in 

A27-48 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA 

the decision, or it will be found to be arbitrary and capricious” (162 IBLA 2). In determining whether or 

not to issue a lease (exercise of discretion), other resource values must be taken into account. The ROD 

will provide a rational and defensible basis for the decision whether or not to lease areas based upon the 

analysis of the alternatives in the EIS. Some resource values can be adequately protected from impacts 

associated with oil and gas development with timing restrictions, some require surface use restrictions, 

and other resource values can only be adequately protected through no leasing. It is BLM policy to utilize 

the least restrictive measure needed to adequately protect the other resources.

Comment: The National Park Service has reviewed this project in relation to any possible conflicts with 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) and the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 

programs. The following projects are located in the Pinedale area so the possibility of impacting such 

properties is real: 

• 56-00138 & 368, Pinedale Municipal Park 

• 56-00433; Pinedale Tennis Courts 

• 56-00525, Pinedale Community School Pool 

• 56-00677 & 745, Pinedale Ballfields 

• 56-00810, Pinedale American Legion Park 

• 56-00528 & 639, Marbleton Town Park 

We recommend you consult directly with the official who administers the L&WCF program in the State 

of Wyoming to determine any potential conflicts with section 6(f)(3) of the L&WCF Act (Public Law 88-

578, as amended). 

Response: These facilities are all located within the towns of Pinedale and Marbleton and are not subject 

to BLM management. In general, socioeconomic impacts to local communities can be assumed to also 

apply to these facilities located within the communities.

Comment: In developing the Pinedale RMP, the BLM must provide for and allow itself sufficient 

flexibility to utilize the categorical exclusions developed by Congress to streamline oil and gas permitting 

on federal lands. In Title III of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress developed five separate 

categorical exclusions intended to facilitate the production of domestic energy sources, without 

compromising the necessary protection for other resources. See Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 

109-58, § 390(b) 119 Stat. 594, 748 (2005). As the BLM is aware, categorical exclusions are actions 

which are considered so insignificant and routine that they do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant impact on the human environment. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4 (2006). After carefully studying the 

issue, Congress determined that certain oil and gas activities, such as drilling individual infill wells in an 

area where a site-specific EIS or EA has previously been prepared, are so inconsequential that additional 

NEPA documentation is not required. Although the use of categorical exclusion is not required, Congress 

expressed a clear preference for the BLM to utilize categorical exclusions by creating a rebuttable 

presumption for their use. See Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 390(b) 119 Stat. 594, 

747-48 (2005). In order to avoid potential litigation from those opposed to the use of categorical 

exclusions, and in order to comply with Congress’ unequivocal directive, the BLM must incorporate the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 categorical exclusions into the Pinedale RMP and develop an overall 

management goal encouraging their use.

Response: BLM will comply with all laws and regulations. However, noting your concern in using the 

Section 390 CXs, air quality and wildlife impacts will be evaluated in addition to cultural resources and 

paleontological resources, among others. 

Pinedale RMP A27-49 
Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA Final EIS 

Comment: PAGE: G-19 CHANGE: RECREATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSES ACT OF 1926 (R&PP) 

– R& PP (43 U.S.C. § 869 to 869-4) is administered by BLM and authorizes the lease or patent of public 

lands for recreational or public purposes to State and local governments, and to qualified non-profit 

organizations at a reduced cost. [refers to both the Recreation and Public Purposes Act [(43 USC 869(a)] 

and the uses to be made of public land transferred under the act. The objective of the R&PP Act is to meet 

the needs of state and local government agencies and nonprofit organizations by leasing or conveying 

public land required for recreation and public purpose uses.](STRIKEOUT)Examples of uses made of 

R&PP lands are parks, [and](STRIKEOUT)greenbelts, sanitary landfills, schools, [religious] 

(STRIKEOUT) municipal facilities, [and](STRIKEOUT) camps for youth groups. [The act provides 

substantial cost benefits for land acquisition](STRIKEOUT) and [provides for recreation facilities 

or](STRIKEOUT) historical monuments [at no cost](STRIKEOUT). EXPLANATION: Definition to 

needs to be modified to accurately represent statutory and regulatory objectives and requirements, 43 

C.F.R. Part 2470, as well as recognized examples of R&PP uses.

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: We can anticipate that, even though the RMP is not a project-level environmental analysis 

and this supposedly will be completed at the project level, BLM will use categorical exclusions to the 

extent possible under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to exempt oil and gas projects from project-level 

environmental analysis, tiering such exemptions to the RMP. Thus, project-level analysis would never 

occur, in violation of NEPA and FLPMA. BLM must establish in the RMP specific monitoring objectives 

and criteria and the outcomes it expects to achieve. 

Response: BLM will comply with all applicable laws, including the Energy Policy Act, in determining 

whether a Categorical Exclusion can be applied in any case. 

It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level because the RMP will not directly 

authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation and the 

methods to be used must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. The 

action alternatives contemplate the establishment of working groups that are intended to integrate the 

decision, implementation, mitigation, evaluation, and response process.

Comment: A BLM RMP should not be the basis for any Categorical Exclusions, as the RMP structure is 

not site specific or detailed enough to exclude activities from analysis. The proper analysis is to occur 

under the Implementation Strategy between the BLM and the Cooperating Agencies. Please include the 

following paragraph within the PRMP, as it is suggested and approved by the Wyoming State BLM 

Office. 

After issuing the Approved Plan and ROD, an Implementation Strategy will be developed. The 

Implementation Strategy will include an annual coordination meeting between BLM and the Cooperating 

Agencies in the RMP revision. The annual coordination meeting will include an update on 

implementation of the plan, foreseeable activities for the upcoming year, and opportunities for continued 

collaboration with the RMP cooperators. Additional coordination meetings could be held as needed. 

Response: BLM will comply with all applicable laws, including the Energy Policy Act, in determining 

whether a Categorical Exclusion can be applied in any case. The suggested paragraph has been added to 

the Final EIS.

Comment: We can anticipate that, even though the RMP is not a project-level environmental analysis 

and this supposedly will be completed at the project level, BLM will use categorical exclusions to the 

extent possible under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to exempt oil and gas projects from project-level 

A27-50 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA 

environmental analysis, tiering such exemptions to the RMP. Thus project-level analysis would never 

occur, in violation of NEPA and FLPMA. BLM must establish in the RMP specific monitoring objectives 

and criteria and the outcomes it expects to achieve. 

Response: BLM will comply with all laws, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005, in determining 

whether a categorical exclusion is applicable in any case. Please also see language in the actions common 

to all alternatives, Section 2.3 in the final EIS, regarding assessments to be completed when processing 

Energy Policy Act, Section 390, categorical exclusions. 

Comment: Chapter 2 Page 9 Commentor WGFD Ensure that such mitigation is either statutorily required 

or scientifically justifiable and is the least restrictive measure necessary to accomplish the desired level of 

resource protection.” The term “desired level” must be clearly defined. Plan should identify who/what 

determines what this level is. 

Response: This language is taken from EPCA, and BLM is unable to change it. EPCA does not provide a 

definition. 

Comment: Page: 2-20, Section: 2.4.4. Recommended Change: Unavailable Areas would be withdrawn 

and managed for protection of wildlife habitats through indefinitely postponing the availability of lands 

for oil and gas leasing. Explanation: FLPMA requires BLM to withdraw the area from mineral leasing in 

this situation. BLM Energy and Non-Energy Mineral Policy (April 21, 2006) (formally adopted through 

IM 2006-197). See also MSLF v. Hodel, 668 F. Supp. 1466, 1474 (D. Wyo. 1987); MSLF v. Andrus, 499 

F. Supp. 383 (D. Wyo. 1980). 

Response: BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP. 

Comment: Page: 2-21, Section: 2.4.4. Recommended Change: Redo the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act 

assessment to conform to BLM manual direction. Explanation: BLM must follow the manual. DM 8351, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers - Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and Management. 

Because the 2003 report does not conform to manual criteria, BLM must redo the report. Specifically, the 

report does not identify existing water rights or the effect of classification on the exercise of the water 

rights. 

Response: The Final EIS has been updated to include a discussion of existing water rights. BLM believes 

that the EIS follows manual direction for analysis of potential wild and Scenic River segments. 

Comment: Energy Policy Act of 2005: This Act allowed NEPA categorical exclusions of projects for 

which a land use plan (RMP) had been completed within the previous 5 years. Once this RMP is 

approved, this could result in avoidance of project-level planning and consequent safeguards for other 

resources if that development occurred in a previously established gas field, which is defined as a single 

well. RMP-level planning, and in particular this performance-based RMP that does not rely on defined 

impact limits, cannot adequately provide project-level planning information that is detailed enough to 

determine needed permit conditions of approval. 

In order to avoid unintentional impacts to other resources, we and other State Cooperators have developed 

language with the State BLM office to require an annual meeting between BLM and State Cooperators for 

the purpose of informally reviewing the upcoming year’s permits, for the purpose of assessing impacts 

and recommending conditions of approval. This would be done outside the NEPA process. The specific 

language for implementing this annual meeting is available from the State BLM office, and as agreed, 

will be part of every RMP in Wyoming. We recommend obtaining that language from your State Office 

and inserting it into this RMP as well. 

Pinedale RMP A27-51 
Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA Final EIS 

Response: BLM will comply with all applicable laws, including the Energy Policy Act, in determining 

whether a Categorical Exclusion can be applied in any case. 

Comment: NEPA implementing regulations require that an EIS include discussions of the “Energy 

requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures”, and also of the 

‘Natural or depletable resource requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and 

mitigation measures. [Sec. 1502.16 (e) and (f)]. Please provide the required analysis and disclosure. 

Response: This information is generally contained throughout Chapter 4 of the draft EIS, including the 

cumulative impact analysis in Section 4.19. Because the RMP is a planning-level document that does not 

directly authorize any on the ground activities, it is not possible to quantify the specific energy 

requirements or conservation potential among the alternatives. Similarly, it is difficult to design specific 

mitigation at the RMP level. The analysis of energy requirements and conservation potential and the 

appropriate employment of mitigation measures must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts 

can be predicted. 

Comment: The BLM must bear in mind that the “primary purpose” of an EIS is to “insure that the 

policies and goals defined in [the National Environmental Policy Act—NEPA] are infused into the 

ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1. The policies and goals of 

NEPA include, • Encouraging a “productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment”, 

• Promoting “efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere”, • Using 

“all practicable means and measures . . .to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature 

can exist in productive harmony . . .”, • Fulfilling “the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the 

environment for succeeding generations”, • Assuring “all Americans safe, healthful, productive and 

esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings”, • Allowing beneficial use of the environment “without 

degradation . . . or other undesirable or unintended consequences”, • Preserving “important historic, 

cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage . . .”, • Achieving a “balance between population and 

resource use . . .”, and • Enhancing “the quality of renewable resources” and maximizing recycling of 

depletable resources. (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4331). Thus, the needs that BLM must identify for analysis in 

its environmental analysis include the above goals and policies, and we ask the BLM to “insure” that 

these goals and policies are “infused” into an appropriate analysis of elk feedgrounds and that native 

winter ranges and birthing areas for big game are protected. 

Response: Retention and elimination of elk feedgrounds on BLM-administered public lands are analyzed 

in the alternatives. Relevant impacts of these actions are included in the Chapter 4 discussion. The impact 

analysis of elk feedground decisions has been expanded in the FEIS. 

Comment: In the absence of Congressional action on this issue, I request that the Categorical Exclusion 

Annual Meeting document that was accepted by the Wyoming BLM State Office be incorporated into this 

RMP, to provide some regulatory oversight over the process of granting categorical exclusions under 

Section 390(b)(3) of the Act. 

Response: BLM will comply with all applicable laws, including the Energy Policy Act, in determining 

whether a Categorical Exclusion can be applied in any case. 

Alternatives 

Comment: The description of Alternative 3 understates the amount of emphasis put on “environmental 

protection”. In a word, it is extreme. Alternative 3 removes so much land from even limited development 

as to make it politically unpallatable. It even removes land that is not critical habitat for any major 

species. I surmise that its real reason for existance is to make Alternative 4 look good, 

A27-52 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA 

Response: The range of alternatives was developed to provide an overview of a wide range of 

management options. BLM analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives in the draft EIS.

Comment: - Alternative 2 provides virtually no protection for the environment whatsoever. It stands no 

chance of approval, so it shouldn’t even be in the document. Alternative 2 which, by comparison, makes 

Alternative 4 look like it was drafted by ‘tree huggers’.

Response: BLM analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives in the draft EIS. It is important to analyze a 

wide range of options to provide the decisionmaker with adequate basis for the RMP that is ultimately 

chosen.

Comment: VII. BLM Should Consider A No Leasing Alternative In The Pinedale RMP EIS. BLM’s no 

action alternative in the RMP DEIS is continuation of the existing 1988 Pinedale RMP. We request that in 

addition to this alternative, a no future oil and gas leasing alternative be considered in the RMP. 

Consideration of such an alternative would provide a better and more accurate picture of baseline 

environmental conditions and environmental impacts than the existing “no action” alternative does. 

Providing an analysis of the consequences of such a no action alternative would provide BLM with a far 

truer picture of many baseline conditions, allowing for a far more useful analysis of the environmental 

consequences of the various “action alternatives.” Consideration of such an alternative is certainly 

envisioned by both NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA, 

and is demanded by various court decisions.

Response: BLM considered this alternative, but eliminated it from detailed analysis for the reasons stated 

on pages 2-3 of the draft EIS.

Comment: The DEIS Failed to Consider a Reasonable Range of Alternatives NEPA requires that federal 

agencies provide a detailed evaluation of alternatives to the proposed action in every EIS. 42 U.S.C. § 

4332(C)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). This discussion of alternatives is essential to the purpose of NEPA: 

NEPA’s requirement that alternatives be studied, developed, and described both guides the substance of 

environmental decision-making and provides evidence that the mandated decision-making process has 

actually taken place. Informed and meaningful consideration of alternatives -- including the no action 

alternative-- is thus an integral part of the statutory scheme. 

Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 (1989) 

(citations and emphasis omitted). NEPA requires agencies to “study, develop, and describe appropriate 

alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternative uses of available resources.” 42 U.S.C. §4332(E); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b) “An 

agency must look at every reasonable alternative, with the range dictated by the nature and scope of the 

proposed action.” Northwest Envt’l Defense Center v. Bonneville Power Admin., 117 F.3d 1520, 1538 

(9th Cir. 1997). An agency violates NEPA by failing to “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives” to the proposed action. City of Tenakee Springs v. Clough, 915 F.2d 1308, 1310 

(9th Cir. 1990) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14). 

Response: The draft EIS analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives. The commenter failed to provide an 

alternative that was not considered.

Comment: The draft EIS fails to meet these requirements because the four alternatives considered have 

few differences among them relative to several of their most important components. The EIS recognizes 

that the most significant impact likely to occur in the PFO is oil and gas development. Given the 

dominant influences of the oil and gas development on the environment, BLM had a responsibility to 

Pinedale RMP A27-53 
Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA Final EIS 

consider real alternatives for managing these factors. Yet it did not do this. The number of oil and gas 

wells is only marginally different among the four alternatives. Under Alternative 4 it is estimated 19,168 

billion cubic feet of natural gas has and will be produced between 2001 and 2020, while under Alternative 

3 16,730 billion cubic feet of natural gas would be produced in this period. 

Response: The RMP will be unable to influence the existing environment in the short term. The plan 

must be based upon realistic alternatives, and large areas of the affected environment are already 

developed and leased. Given these constraints, BLM and cooperators identified heavily developed areas 

and areas that are not heavily developed. The designation of these areas is a critical part of the alternative. 

The fact that the recovery of oil and gas resources does not change substantially does not mean that the 

range of alternatives analyzed was inadequate. 

General NEPA 

Comment: Page 2-2 NEPA Activity plans can be tiered to the RMP. Yates disagrees with BLM’s 

assumption that another EIS will be needed. Geographic Area Plans or other small scale NEPA should be 

tiered to the existing NEPA analysis for the RMP t how that operations and impacts remain within the 

scope of the analysis. 

Response: The RMP/EIS provides the framework for the management of resources within the planning 

area. It does not provide project-level or site-specific analysis. Therefore, project-level and/or site-specific 

NEPA analysis will be necessary for many projects.

Comment: We believe that the NEPA process to date has been hindered through deficiencies in the 

scoping process. Additionally, social and economic impacts, particularly cumulative impacts, have not 

been adequately analyzed and/or disclosed. As we continue to work towards a Record of Decision (ROD), 

we request that these issues be rectified and that the decision criteria that the BLM proposes to use in 

selecting an Alternative be available for review and comment. 

Response: BLM conducted an adequate scoping period at the initiation of the RMP revision process. In 

recognition of the complexity of issues involved in this RMP, BLM took 5 years to produce a draft EIS 

with four reasonable alternatives. The planning criteria can be found in Chapter 1. BLM feels that the 

socioeconomic impact analysis is appropriate.

Comment: From a NEPA standpoint, the BLM has developed and analyzed an appropriate range of 

alternatives in the Pinedale RMP DEIS. By including alternatives that are likely to have either more 

significant or less significant environmental impacts than the No Action Alternative, the BLM has 

provided a basis for informed comparison between various management scenarios for the public and the 

agencies. Further, the BLM properly considered, but did not analyze in detail, various alternatives that do 

not meet the purpose and need of the proposed RMP Revision, or the BLM’s obligation to foster the 

development of domestic energy sources under the Mineral Leasing Act (“MLA”), FLPMA, or the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. For example, the BLM properly eliminated from detailed study a proposed 

alternative that would have closed the entire Pinedale Resource Area to oil and gas leasing. In addition to 

the reasons identified on pages 2-3 of the RMP DEIS, the BLM should inform the public that only the 

Secretary of the Interior could withdraw the entire planning area from oil and gas leasing under FLPMA, 

and that withdrawals can only be made using specific procedures mandated by FLPMA. 43 U.S.C. § 

1714(a), (b) (2006) (requiring withdrawals to be made by the Secretary of the Interior, or a person in the 

Secretary’s office who has been appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and 

listing the requirements necessary for the Secretary to withdraw public lands).

Response: Oil and gas leasing is a discretionary federal action and does not require a withdrawal.

A27-54 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA 

Comment: The changes proposed in Appendix 3 concern us for three reasons. First, because as noted 

above, mitigation guidelines (bad as they are) are subject to change by BLM at any time without public 

involvement; second, because waivers or exceptions to mitigation requirements can be granted without 

environmental analysis; and third, and most importantly, restrictions which have been in place for many 

years are now being proposed for elimination. For instance, while under the current management plan oil 

and gas drilling was prohibited on slopes in excess of 25%, under the DEIS this restriction will be 

eliminated. We point out emphatically that there was good reason for adoption of this and the other 

mitigation restrictions in the current plan--to prevent unnecessary, or undue degradation from adverse 

environmental impacts before they occur. Those specific criteria were adopted based on the best 

information available at the time and they are just as necessary for the next 15 years as they were for the 

past 15 years. BLM has even more information available today which demonstrates that these specific 

restrictions should be a minimal level of mitigation guidance, not be eliminated. Elimination of the other 

mitigation restrictions which are in the current plan is equally egregious and would violate FLPMA and 

NEPA.

Response: The exception process and criteria are developed through the NEPA process in documents, 

such as the draft EIS and project-level EAs or EISs. As stated in Appendix 7 of the draft EIS and 43 CFR 

3101.1-4, BLM can solicit public review if the authorized officer determines a modification or waiver is 

substantial. While the mitigation prescribed for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may not carry the same language 

as that in Alternative 1, it does carry the same objective. Specifically, the 25% slope restriction has an 

objective of preventing excessive erosion from surface-disturbing activities on such slopes. Alternatives 

2, 3, and 4 have the same objective, but through performance-based guidelines, mitigation allows project 

proponents an opportunity to develop measures that would meet the objective. Should BLM determine 

that the proponent’s measure would not meet the objective, BLM has the authority to impose more 

stringent measures, such as the slopes restriction. FLPMA directs BLM’s management of the various 

public lands and resources under its jurisdiction, and NEPA specifies that major federal actions must 

undergo environmental analysis. Neither law prescribed specific mitigation measures; therefore, carrying 

forward or not carrying forward measures from the 1988 RMP (i.e., draft EIS Alternative 1) does not 

violate either of these statutes. 

Comment: NEPA requires that all federal agencies “recognize the worldwide and long-range character of 

environmental problems” that they support “initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize 

international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of mankind’s world 

environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(F). There is no discussion whatever of the environmental impacts to the 

world environment and how the RMP will contribute to prevention of a decline in the quality of 

mankind’s world environment. It is obvious that ongoing and future activities under the RMP will have 

impacts that affect the world environment, such as impacts to air quality. The FEIS must address this in 

its environmental analysis.

Response: The draft EIS analyzes impacts on the environment where they would occur. NEPA directs 

federal agencies to analyze the effects of proposed actions to the extent they are reasonably foreseeable 

consequences of the proposed action, regardless of where those impacts might occur. 

A majority of the impacts analyzed in the draft EIS are limited to the Pinedale planning area. However, 

some impacts would extend outside the planning area and would combine with impacts from other actions 

implemented outside the planning area. These cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 4.19 of 

Chapter 4 in the draft EIS. The extent of the impacts is identified for each resource in a defined 

cumulative impact analysis area (CIAA). For example, the CIAA for air quality extends outside the 

planning area to cover areas within Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado.

Pinedale RMP A27-55 
Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA Final EIS 

Comment: NEPA limits actions an agency may take during the RMP revision process (a NEPA process). 

Specifically, NEPA requires that, Until an agency issues a record of decision . . . no action concerning the 

proposal shall be taken which would: (1) Have an adverse environmental impact; or (2) Limit the choice 

of reasonable alternatives. 40 C.F.R. § 1506.1(a)(1)-(2). 

It is patently obvious that the scope and intensity of oil and gas drilling which will be permitted under the 

Pinedale Anticline Final EIS and ROD will have significant adverse impacts to the environment and will 

clearly limit the choice of reasonable alternatives for the RMP Final EIS. Furthermore, issuance of the 

South Piney Development Project and the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Records of Decision during the 

RMP revision process have violated the same NEPA prohibition. While the latter two projects are already 

being implemented, the Pinedale Anticline FEIS and ROD have not been issued and it is not too late to 

halt this project until the RMP FEIS and ROD are issued. 

Issuing new leases in the planning area also violates NEPA. Additionally, BLM Instruction Memorandum 

No. 2001-146 states that, For lands on which oil and gas leases have not been issued, leasing decisions 

should be withheld pending completion of the planning decision associated with and EA or EIS for and 

RMP amendment or revision that is being undertaken where oil and gas is the primary issue being 

considered. This policy applies even though lands may be open to oil and gas leasing under the existing 

RMP. 

In addition, Instruction Memorandum 2004-110 Change 1 provides that State Offices “are to consider 

temporarily deferring oil, gas and geothermal leasing on federal lands with land use plans that are 

currently being revised or amended.” Specific consideration for deferral is to be given to certain 

categories of land “that are designated in the preferred alternative or draft or final RMP revisions or 

amendments as: (1) lands closed to leasing; (2) lands open to leasing under no surface occupancy; (3) 

lands open to leasing under seasonal or other constraints with an emphasis on wildlife concerns; or (4) 

other potentially restricted lands.” There are parcels in the planning area which fall into one of these 

categories and which have nonetheless been leased during the RMP revision process. This violated 

BLM’s own internal guidance. It also violated NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and FLPMA’s 

multiple use mandate. Should BLM choose to continue to violate federal statutes and BLM guidance by 

issuing new leases in the planning area, at the minimum NSO stipulations must be placed on all new lease 

parcels. We again request that the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development SEIS and 

other major projects in the planning area, not be authorized or finalized until the RMP FEIS and ROD are 

issued. We also request that no new leases be auctioned or issued in the planning area until the RMP FEIS 

and ROD are issued. 

Response: Because the BLM Pinedale planning area is currently managed under an existing RMP, which 

was approved in 1988, management actions can be taken during the RMP revision process and prior to 

issuance of the new RMP ROD. However, the Pinedale Field Office is conducting current management 

with cognizance of the alternatives being considered in the RMP revision process. Because the Jonah and 

South Piney areas contain existing valid oil and gas leases, it is not a violation of NEPA to conduct 

analysis of developments in those areas. BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of 

existing valid leases.

Comment: The BLM is charged with “tak[ing] any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation of the lands.” 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b). BLM’s UUD responsibilities are intertwined with the 

agency’s NEPA duties. Under NEPA, BLM must identify impacts a proposed action will have to the 

environment; married to this obligation are the duties imposed by FLPMA to identify the thresholds of 

acceptable impact and then determine whether the impacts are unnecessary or undue. If the impacts are 

determined to be necessary and unavoidable, BLM must then analyze whether the impacts are undue. 

NEPA then reasserts itself in the process by mandating that alternatives be considered to ensure that 

A27-56 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA 

unnecessary or undue actions shall not be undertaken and to ensure that methodologies used to prevent 

UUD are supported and verified. Ecology Center, Inc. v. Austin, 430 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Should any of the four alternatives in the DEIS be implemented in a Record of Decision, BLM will 

violate FLPMA by failing at the planning stage to “take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or 

undue degradation of the [public] lands.” FLPMA doesn’t just require that UUD be addressed at the 

project level of analysis; rather, the statute requires that UUD be addressed at the planning stage as well. 

BLM has failed to engage in the analysis needed to ensure that under the RMP unnecessary actions 

cannot be undertaken, by failing to establish thresholds in the plan for acceptable levels of impact beyond 

which degradation is undue, and by failing to articulate methodologies to be used to prevent UUD and 

that they are reliable and verified. FLPMA requires that, the public lands be managed in a manner that 

will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, 

water resource, and archeological values; . . . that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and 

domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use; 43 U.S.C. § 

1701(a)(8). At the same time, FLPMA directs that these uses be balanced with mineral extraction by 

requiring that, the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the nation’s need for domestic 

sources of minerals . . . from the public lands including implementation of the Mining and Minerals 

Policy Act of 1970.. . 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a) (12). The key here is for BLM to balance these opposing 

needs. The alternatives do not do this. The alternatives are weighted in favor of industrial uses of these 

public lands, with little regard for the other multiple uses of the lands and the impacts on the resources 

and environment. The DEIS discloses that there will be significant impacts to wildlife and fish habitat 

through reasonably foreseeable development 

The BLM has not promulgated regulations implementing the “unnecessary or undue degradation” 

standard in the context of oil and gas development; nevertheless, the “unnecessary or undue degradation” 

standard is not undermined or diminished by the lack of implementing regulations. Indeed, given that 

section 1732(b) constitutes the “heart of FLPMA,” it suggests an acute - and commonsense - need for the 

agency to take the “unnecessary or undue degradation” standard seriously. Mineral Policy Center at 5. 

This is especially so in the context of the management plan for this area where full-field gas development 

is occurring at a density and degree of habitat destruction never before seen in the United States since the 

passage of FLPMA. 

Preventing UUD by requirement of directional drilling, clustered wellpads, central gathering systems, 

buried lines, remote monitoring, BACT, phased development, lease buyouts, NSO on everything not 

leased, more ACECs, and meaningful protections for wildlife including mandatory stipulations is 

imperative. BLM can and should require these. Industry will do what is required because they stand to 

lose billions if they don’t. The burden should be on industry to demonstrate by convincing documentation 

why they should not be held to these standards.

Response: BLM has disclosed that impacts are expected to be significant, but BLM has not determined 

that any of these impacts are unnecessary and undue. BLM retains authority to prevent unnecessary and 

undue degradation on a site-specific and case-by-case basis through the application of site-specific COAs 

and stipulations. 

A finding of no significant impact through NEPA analysis does not imply a project has been reviewed for 

unnecessary or undue degradation or that unnecessary or undue degradation will not occur. Likewise, a 

finding of significant impact does not imply that unnecessary and undue degradation would occur. 

The fact that a proposal would not cause unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands does not 

preclude the possibility that it would cause significant environmental impacts that would require 

preparation of an EIS. If there are significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, an EIS 

Pinedale RMP A27-57 
Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA Final EIS 

must be prepared even if there is no unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands, as BLM has 

done with this EIS. If there is unnecessary or undue degradation, it must be mitigated. 

If unnecessary or undue degradation cannot be prevented by mitigating measures, BLM is required to 

deny approval of the action. 

Unnecessary and undue degradation for fluid minerals is not defined by FLPMA, therefore this standard 

is somewhat subjective. 

IBLA presented its opinion as to what constitutes an action that results in unnecessary and undue 

degradation at 165 IBLA 229. IBLA stated undue degradation occurs when “...a lessee’s operations are or 

were conducted in a manner that does not comply with applicable law or regulations, prudent 

management and practice, or reasonably available technology such that the lessee could not undertake 

that action pursuant to a valid existing right”. Further, the board held that a NSO could not be applied post 

lease (see 165 IBLA 221). 

However, the Surface Management Regulations define unnecessary and undue degradation and can 

provide insight into standards for determination of unnecessary an undue. The Surface Management 

Regulations, where unnecessary and undue degradation is defined, “requires BLM to consider, in relation 

to operations of similar character, the extent of surface disturbance and the effects on resources and land 

uses both within and outside the area of operations.” Kendall’s Concerned Area Residents, 129 IBLA 

130, 140 (1994). 

BLM utilized the NEPA process to evaluate both whether a proposal would result in significant impacts 

on the environment and whether mitigation measures are required to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation of the public lands. 

Comment: Purely from a NEPA perspective, there are many omissions. Where is the section on the 

hydrogeology (ground water), both quality and quantity, in the planning area? Clean water is a most 

valuable resource, without which the carrying capacity of the land would degrade, and human, wildlife, 

fisheries and domestic animal habitation would cease to exist. How much ground water would be required 

for each of the alternatives? And how much ground water is that in addition to the water requirements for 

the proposed 4,000 new wells in the Pinedale Anticline? Furthermore, how much water will the residents, 

agriculture and wildlife require of the supporting aquifers in the next six decades? Where are the critical 

recharge areas and will they be respected in this energy development plan? 

Response: The impact analysis is appropriate for the scope of the draft EIS. Because the RMP will not 

authorize any on-the-ground activities, it is not possible to predict and quantify specific impacts on water 

quantity and quality. The analysis of such specific impacts must be tied to a specific proposal where 

specific impacts can be predicted. 

Groundwater monitoring and studies are underway but will not produce significant results for some time. 

WDEQ has primacy in water matters within the State of Wyoming. BLM works in cooperation with 

WDEQ to maintain the health of the land and the water that flows off it, but WDEQ has final authority 

with regard to water.

Comment: NEPA requires a realistic assessment of economic impacts, and it is not realistic to assume 

that 100% of the technically recoverable oil and gas will ever be recovered The potential cost of 

protecting the environment and the possible benefits of drilling must all be based on estimates of 

economically recoverable resources. As the management plan and Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

A27-58 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA 

scenario are developed, we formally request that they be based on economically recoverable amounts of 

oil and gas, not technically recoverable oil and gas.)

Response: BLM made assumptions, and disclosed those assumptions. The disclosure of such 

assumptions is all NEPA requires in taking a “hard look” at the consequences of an action on the human 

environment.

Comment: This basic, fundamental requirement is the “heart” of every EIS and has not gone unnoticed 

by the federal judiciary, which has rejected EISs that fail to meet it. See e.g., Calvert Cliffs‚ Coordinating 

Comm., Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Comm’n, 449 F.2d 1109, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (detailed 

EIS required to ensure that each agency decision maker has before him and takes into account all possible 

approaches to a particular project . . . which would alter the environmental impact and the cost-benefit 

balance); Natural Resource Defense Council v. Callaway, 524 F.2d 79, 93 (2d Cir. 1975) (“The duty to 

consider reasonable alternatives is independent from and of wider scope than the duty to file an 

environmental statement.”); Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 729 (9th 

Cir. 1995) (“The existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact 

statement inadequate.”); 

Northwest Envt’l Defense Center v. Bonneville Power Admin., 117 F.3d 1520, 1538 (9th Cir. 1997) (“An 

agency must look at every reasonable alternative, with the range dictated by the nature and scope of the 

proposed action.”); Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094,1122-1123 (9th Cir. 2002) (and 

cases cited therein) (stating that agencies must develop and analyze environmentally protective 

alternatives in order to comply with NEPA).

Response: The draft EIS analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives. The commenter failed to provide an 

alternative that was not considered.

Comment: PAGE: 2-13 SECTION: 2.3.16 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: • [Compensation](strikeout) 

Compensatory mitigation through the use of proponent-generated funds to a third party for use on to 

mitigate the impacts to the same, or related resources., [or tangible benefits.](strikeout) EXPLANATION: 

Third party funds for use on benefits, same, related or tangible is not authorized under NEPA case law or 

IM 2005-69. Mitigation is to reduce or compensate for impact, not to create new benefits. 

Response: BLM disagrees with the suggested text change. Section 2.3.16 of the draft EIS complies with 

BLM policy on offsite mitigation.

Comment: PAGE: G-14 CHANGE: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) - NEPA 

[is the basic national law for protection of the environment, ](STRIKEOUT)(passed by Congress in 

1969), establishes analytical and public involvement procedures to disclose and evaluate the impacts of 

every major federal action. (EXPLANATION: The definition misrepresents Congress’ intent in enacting 

NEPA, and needs to be revised to state that NEPA only imposes procedural requirements on a federal 

agency, 42 U.S.C. § 4332. N Valley Citizen’s Alliance, 490 U.S. 332 (1989).

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS.

FLPMA/L and Management 

Comment: My primary concern is that the Pinedale RMP does not assure the state of Wyoming that 

resources will be managed as described in the draft document. As the Preferred Alternative is currently 

written, I am not confident that there that will be long-term protection of resources other than oil and gas 

development throughout the life of this RMP. Given the intense level of such in areas administered by the 

Pinedale Field Office, there needs to be a high level of assurance that the very limited remaining unleased 

Pinedale RMP A27-59 
Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA Final EIS 

portions of the management area remain unavailable to leasing in order to maintain a functional landscape 

for wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, grazing, cultural resources and open space.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP was not intended to give concrete assurances. It was designed to provide 

the public with a reasonable range of alternatives to consider and comment on. Those comments would be 

taken in to consideration in development of the final EIS. The final EIS will provide stronger direction 

and assurances with regard to how the public lands and minerals within the planning area will be 

managed. The ROD promulgated from the final EIS-proposed RMP will give finite management direction 

and is legally binding. 

Comment: It is time that The Bureau of Land Management balance their policies on the side of the 

ecosystems of the land they are charged to manage. 

Response: A range of alternatives is presented to reach this balance within the rules the American people, 

through Congress, have provided for the management of the public lands.

Comment: If you are interested in maintaining the “Multiple Use” philosophy then please consider our 

use of these lands as well. Please find the attached map which was documented on a GPS to be considered 

left open for OHV use if the rest of the open areas are restricted. We would like the opportunity to be 

involved in further discussions of area restrictions.

Response: The map has been reviewed and this use of the public land has been considered. BLM has 

determined that open OHV use is not appropriate in this area, which will be limited to existing roads and 

trails (Map 2-35 of the draft EIS).

Comment: We do not support the proposed “performance based” management approach to evaluating 

industry actions. Recent experience with the PAWG and the unwillingness by BLM to enforce its own 

management requirements to guide field development, makes this proposal look like BLM is giving away 

its management responsibilities to industry. This is unacceptable and will not protect our public interests.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land-use planning scale.

Comment: Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 ("FLPMA"), the BLM is 

required to develop land use plans to guide the agencies management of federal lands under its 

administration. 43 U.S.C. § 1711 (2006). The Supreme Court of the United States in a recent unanimous 

decision recognized that under FLPMA land use plans are not an appropriate medium for making 

affirmative decisions. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 69 (2004). The BLM’s 

Land Use Planning Handbook also specifies that RMPs are not normally used to make site-specific 

implementation decisions. See BLM Handbook H-1601-1, II.B.2.a, pg. 13 (Rel. 1-1693 3/11/05). Despite 

the clear instruction from the Supreme Court of the United States and the BLM’s own planning manual, 

the draft version of the Pinedale RMP appears to make several management decisions that are most 

appropriately left to site-specific authorizations. For example, under both Alternatives 3 and 4, the BLM 

appears to impose specific operational limitations on oil and gas development, including the prohibition 

of on-lease water disposal pits (Alternatives 3 and 4) and the mandatory imposition of best management 

practices (BMPs) regardless of their applicability or feasibility. See RMP DEIS, pgs. 2-81 - 2-83, 2-120. 

The BLM must not utilize the land use planning process to impose site-specific conditions of approval or 

unreasonably limit future management actions.

Response: Along with land use allocations, development and reclamation standards are presented to 

provide a range of alternatives. An adequate range of alternatives is given for analysis purposes. 

A27-60 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA 

Appendix 3 is a compilation of practices and stipulations BLM already employs to mitigate impacts that 

could be applied on a site-specific basis. Others, such as water disposal pits, are provided for in one 

alternative but not in another alternative to allow the analysis to show whether the restriction is warranted 

or not.

Comment: The agency’s stated Preferred Alternative abandons the FLPMA multiple-use mandate to 

favor a single dominant-use. The proposed policy objective is to, °Provide opportunities for mineral 

extraction and energy exploration and development to provide resources to meet national and local needs 

while providing appropriate level of environmental protection for all competing resources° (PRMP DEIS 

p. 2-119). I am wholly opposed to this proposal change which appears to violate not only FLPMA but 

also the intent and stated policy of NEPA (NEPA Title 1, Sec. 101(b). Minimally, please elaborate and 

justify the legality of shifting from the BLM’s traditional multiple-use management principle to a 

dominant single-use management policy. I urge you to reconsider your proposed decision to favor 

economic exploitation over biologic resources.

Response: BLM does not intend to change its multiple-use management policy. The goal to provide the 

“appropriate” level of environmental protection for resources, other than mineral extraction, demonstrates 

this. It is reasonable to emphasize minerals in the management goal for minerals management.

Comment: The Preferred Alternative relies heavily on proposed ‘performance-based’ approaches and 

mitigations. °Performance-based mitigations would allow the BLM to implement adaptive management 

principles, recognizing that knowledge about natural resource systems and Mum technology is sometimes 

uncertain and changing° (PRMP DEIS p. 2-113). All too familiar with the Pinedale Field Office’s most 

recent Adaptive Management effort (PAWG), I have seen that BLM fails to perform under these 

circumstances. Continuation of this approach is a farce and will not meet agency objectives. Further, in 

deferring decisionmaking, note that the ‘performance-based’ approach serves to insure on-going public 

and special-interest pressures on the Field Office, something you may wish to avoid for the long-term 

sake of the agency. Authority for sufficient flexibility already existed in past BLM decision documents as 

well as in regulation. I urge you to adhere to the established approach rather than muddy policy and leave 

it open to political subversion.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: The Supreme Court further recognized that the development of RMPs is only the “preliminary 

step in the overall process of managing public lands.” Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 

at 69. Finally, the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook specifies that RMPs are not normally used to 

make site-specific implementation decisions. See BLM Handbook 11-1601-1, II.B.2.a, pg. 13 (Rel. 1-

1693 3/11/05). 

Despite the clear instruction from the Supreme Court of the United States and the BLM’s own planning 

manual, the Pinedale RMP appears to make several management decisions that are most appropriately left 

to site-specific authorizations. For example, under both Alternatives 3 and 4, the BLM appears to impose 

specific operational limitations on oil and gas development including the use of on-lease water disposal 

pits (Alternatives 3 and 4) and the mandatory imposition of best management practices ("BMPs") 

regardless of their applicability or feasibility (Alternative 3, pgs. 2-81 - 2-83 compare Alternative 4, pg. 2-

120 (BMPs will be applied to the extent possible and practicable). The BLM should not utilize the land 

use planning process to impose site-specific conditions of approval or unreasonably limit future 

management actions with limiting language in the Pinedale RMP.

Pinedale RMP A27-61 
Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA Final EIS 

Response: Mitigation is only applied to individual permits or applications for approval of operations on 

existing leases after it has been determined by site-specific NEPA to be necessary and reasonable and its 

effect on the lessee’s economically beneficial use of its lease has been considered.

Comment: Because, the authority conferred in FLPMA is expressly made subject to valid existing rights, 

43 U.S.C. § 1701, an RMP prepared pursuant to FLPMA, after lease execution and after drilling and 

production has commenced, is likewise subject to existing rights. See Colorado Environmental Coal., et 

al., 165 IBLA 221, 228 (2005). The Pinedale RMP, when revised, cannot defeat or materially restrain 

EOG’s valid and existing rights to exploit its leases through conditions of approval or other means. See 

Colorado Environmental Coal., et al., 165 IBLA 221, 228 (2005) (citing Colorado Environmental Coal., 

135 IBLA 356, 360 (1996) aff’d, Colorado Environmental Coal. v. Bureau of Land Management, 932 

F.Supp. 1247 (D.Colo. 1996).

Response: All valid existing rights would be honored consistent with law, regulation, and policy.

Comment: Under either Alternative 3 or 4 the Department of the Interior would be required to comply 

with the formal withdrawal requirements imposed by FLPMA. Under FLPMA a withdrawal is defined as: 

withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the 

general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public 

values in the area or reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring 

jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than "property" governed by the Federal Property and 

Administrative Services Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 472) from one department, bureau or agency to 

another department, bureau or agency. 

43 U.S.C. 1702(j) (2006). If Alternative 3 is selected, the BLM would make a total of 711,920 acres 

unavailable to oil and gas leasing and, under Alternative 4, a total of 174,410 acres unavailable for oil and 

gas leasing. Because such decisions constitute a withdrawal, the Department of the Interior will be 

required to comply with the procedural provisions of Section 204 FLPMA. 43 U.S.C. § 1714 (2006). 

Among the other requirements imposed on the Department of the Interior is the requirement for the 

Secretary of the Interior, as compared to the Director of the BLM or a State Director, to make all 

withdrawals of federal lands. 43 U.S.C. § 1714(a) (2006). The Secretary-or a designee in the Secretary’s 

office appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate-alone is authorized to make withdrawals 

under FLPMA. The Secretary is also required to provide notice of the proposed withdrawal in the Federal 

Register and conduct hearings regarding the withdrawal. 43 U.S.C. § 1714(b)(1) and (h) (2006). Finally, 

the Secretary is required to notify both houses of Congress of the proposed withdrawal. See 43 C.F.R. § 

1610.6 (2006). The notice must include information: (1) regarding the proposed use of the land; (2) an 

inventory and evaluation of the current natural resource uses and value of the land and adjacent public 

and private land which may be affected; (3) an identification of present users and how they will be 

affected; (4) an analysis of the manner in which the existing and potential uses are incompatible with or in 

conflict with the proposed uses; (5) an analysis of the manner in which such lands will be used in relation 

to the specific requirements for the proposed uses; (6) a statement as to whether suitable alternative sites 

are available; (7) a statement of the consultation which has been or will be had with other federal, 

regional, state, and local government bodies; (8) a statement regarding the potential effects of the 

withdrawal on the state, local, and regional economy; (9) a statement of the length of time needed for the 

withdrawal; (10) the time and place of the hearings regarding the withdrawal; (11) the place where the 

records of the withdrawal can be examined; and (12) a report prepared by a qualified mining engineer, 

engineering geologist, or geologist, which shall include information on mineral deposits, mineral 

production, existing mining claims, and an evaluation of future mineral potential. 43 U.S.C. § 1714(c)(2) 

(2006). To date, the BLM and Department of the Interior have not complied with these requirements.

A27-62 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA 

Response: Not making lands available for leasing is not the same as withdrawal. Withdrawal pertains to 

mining law administration and, in some cases, lands and realty, not fluid minerals. Lease issuance is a 

discretionary action. Public lands are available for oil and gas leasing only after they have been evaluated 

through BLM’s multiple-use planning process, this RMP revision process. In areas where development of 

oil and gas resources would conflict with the protection or management of other resources or public land 

uses, the decision to not offer leases, or to offer leases mitigating measures are identified and may appear 

on leases as either stipulations to uses or as restrictions on surface occupancy. It is BLM policy to utilize 

the least restrictive measure to protect the other resource values.

Comment: PAGE: G-3 CHANGE: CLASSIFICATION AND MULTIPLE USE - Refers to both the 

Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964 (expired 1970) and the classifications that were placed on 

lands. . . EXPLANATION: Act expired in 1970 by its own terms, 43 U.S.C. § 1418, and expiration date 

should be added to remove any ambiguity as to its continued application.

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-11 CHANGE: INTERIM MANAGEMENT POLICY (IMP) An interim measure 

governing lands under wilderness review. This policy protects Wilderness Study Areas from impairment 

of their suitability as wilderness, subject to grandfathered uses. EXPLANATION: The IMP does not 

apply to the continuation of existing mining and grazing uses and mineral leasing in the manner and 

degree conducted as of its passage. 43 U.S.C. § 1782(c).

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-14 CHANGE: MULTIPLE USE - Coordinated management of [various surface 

and subsurface resources so that they are used in the](STRIKEOUT) balanced and diverse resource uses 

including but not limited, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and uses 

serving natural scenic, scientific and historical values, [so that they are used](STRIKEOUT) utilized in 

the combination that will best meet present and future needs. EXPLANATION: The multiple use 

definition is incomplete and does not identify the resources to be balanced as specified under FLPMA, 43 

U.S.C. § 1702(c). See SUWA v. Norton, 542 U.S. 55, 58 (2004) (multiple use means the task of striking a 

balance among competing uses, including but not limited, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, 

wildlife and fish, and uses serving natural scenic, scientific and historical values).

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS.

Oil and Gas 

Comment: Courts have similarly recognized that once the BLM has issued an oil and gas lease 

conveying the right to access and develop the leasehold, the BLM cannot later impose unreasonable 

mitigation measures that take away those rights. See Conner v. Burford, 84 F.2d 1441, 1449-50 (9th Cir. 

1988); 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2 (2006) (BLM can impose only “reasonable mitigation measures . . . to 

minimize adverse impacts . . . to the extent consistent with lease rights granted”). EOG has serious 

concerns that under both Alternatives 3 and 4 the BLM will adopt management directives that will 

attempt to either preclude or limit EOG’s rights under its existing leases, or will later adopt COAs that are 

inconsistent with EOG’s rights. Should the BLM deny or unreasonably delay EOG’s ability to develop its 

leases, the BLM’s action may constitute a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. The Federal Court of Claims has recognized that a temporary taking occurs when the BLM 

prohibits oil and gas development on a lease for a substantial period of time. Bass Enterprise Prod. Co. v. 

United States, 45 Fed.Cl. 120, 123 (Fed.Cl. 1999). A lessee who can demonstrate a taking of an oil and 

gas lease is entitled to damages in the fair market rental value of the leasehold. See Bass Enterprise Prod. 

Co. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 621, 625 (Fed.Cl. 2001). If the BLM denies all development 

Pinedale RMP A27-63 
Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA Final EIS 

opportunities on EOG’s leases, EOG will be able to demonstrate a taking. The BLM must not adopt an 

alternative that unconstitutionally takes EOG’s property and contract rights.

Response: BLM does not disagree with the comment that it does not have the authority, once a lease is 

issued, to impose new stipulations or new restrictions on a lease that exceed the terms and conditions of 

existing leases. Sufficient case law exists to clearly demonstrate that BLM does have the authority and 

responsibility to impose new restrictions once a lease has been issued, as long as BLM does not deny 

development of the lease or totally preclude surface disturbing activities. Therefore, our position and 

policy is to take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of a proposed action at the field 

development and application for permit to drill (APD) stage, and, if necessary, require mitigation 

measures as means of reducing impacts. 

The Secretary of the Interior has the authority and responsibility to protect the environment of public 

lands within federal oil and gas leases, Copper Valley Mach. Works, Inc. V. Andrus, 474 F. Supp. 189, 

191 (D.D.C. 1979). The Secretary may impose restrictions on lease terms in fulfillment of this 

responsibility, Natural Resources Defense Counsel V. Bergland, 458 F. Supp 925, 937 (D.D.C. 1978). 

In various oil and gas lease forms, the Secretary reserves the right to incorporate general standards into 

the lease aimed at mitigating environmental damage. However, mitigation must be reasonable. Such postlease restrictions cannot directly or indirectly preclude the development of the lease, absent a no surface 

occupancy stipulation on the lease. Sierra Club V. Peterson, 717 F. 2d 1409 (1983) provides, “On lands 

leased without a No Surface Occupancy Stipulation, the Department cannot deny the permit to drill; it can 

only impose ‘reasonable’ conditions which are designed to mitigate the environmental impacts of the 

drilling operation” (p. 1411). It continues, “Once the land is leased the Department no longer has the 

authority to preclude surface disturbing activities even if the environmental impact of that activity is 

significant...” 

What is reasonable will vary with each individual APD. A “taking” would occur if after a lease, without 

an NSO stipulation, is issued, the lessee is prohibited from conducting development activities on the 

leased lands. A “taking” could also occur if COAs imposed at the APD stage are so stringent that it is not 

practical to conduct operations. It is not BLM policy to use unjustified stipulations or COAs. 

Comment: In the Final EIS, the BLM should discuss the fact that an oil and gas lease is a contract 

between the federal government and the lessee, and that the lessee has certain rights thereunder. 

Response: This discussion can be found in the draft EIS on page 2-8 and has been retained in the final 

EIS.

Comment: Without data on reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development for the Bridger-Teton NF 

responsibilities cannot be fulfilled in accordance with the statute. The RMP process should be extended or 

delayed until this information is available. The oil and gas companies should provide information on their 

assessments of the area and what the total build out looks like. A qualitative discussion of the potential 

build out does not allow the public to assess the quantitative impacts associated with any of the 

alternatives.

Response: NEPA requires the use of best available information. Existing information was used and this 

was disclosed in the analysis. Having this information may more adequately inform the reader, but is 

unlikely to result in a change to or addition of an alternative.

Comment: The Western Governors Association recently adopted a resolution urging more environmental 

analysis before companies are allowed to drill in wildlife corridors or sensitive habitat on public lands. 

A27-64 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Policy/NEPA 

Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal who sponsored the resolution, cautioned that we must continue to 

balance development with environmental and wildlife protections. It is squarely within BLM’s purview 

and mandate to protect habitat and there is no better opportunity to do so than in the management plan 

revision process. Yet BLM has abdicated its obligation in favor of intense and fast-paced industrial 

development. We urge BLM to reconsider its ill-advised policy in the RMP and to adopt the more 

moderate policy recommended by the resolution. 

Response: Measures such as the Trapper’s Point ACEC were developed in part or in whole to address 

these concerns.

Comment: It is crucial that the RMP make clear that conversion to an Intensely Developed Field could 

only occur with future NEPA analysis, particularly since this conversion would not be in conformity with 

the specifically stated management direction for these areas, which is environmental protection. See 43 

U.S.C. § 1732(a) (management of the public lands must be in accordance with the provisions in an RMP); 

43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a) (management actions must conform to the RMP).

Response: Clarifying language on this point has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE:2-143 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise a. Permitted OHV activities 

would be allowed for the purposes of oil and gas development activities and other permitted land uses, 

including livestock grazing. EXPLANATION: The division into intensively developed, minimally 

developed and no development areas excludes other land uses, especially livestock grazing. It 

inaccurately portrays the RMP decisions as oil and gas versus wildlife and ignores the other valid 

multiple uses. 

Response: Intensive development would impact uses such as livestock grazing, but would not exclude 

them. The impacts of intensive oil and gas development are presented in Chapter 4.

Pinedale RMP A27-65 
Appendix 27—Maps Final EIS 

Maps 

General Comment Responses: No GCRs are associated with this category.

Comment: I also have found Numerous discrepancies in the draft RMP, such as maps in the draft don’t 

“jive” with the numbers of acres you say that will be set aside or drilled, is this meant to confuse people, 

thus deceive people? The terms and descriptions are not the same from one Alternative to another, was 

this meant to confuse and deceive people? It does make one wonder. The NSO term is just word play to 

confuse and deceive once again, as the average person would think that the area will not be drilled 

because they will not be able to occupy the surface but you and I both know this is not true. Plus, once 

categorized as an NSO area, it then can be amended and bastardized just the same way the “NO WINTER 

DRILLING” on the Mesa was permitted. 

Response: The numbers of acres in the text were calculated from the areas depicted on the maps. In some 

cases, polygons on the maps may look larger than they should because RMP decisions do not apply to 

private or state-owned lands that may fall within the areas. BLM believes all terms and descriptions are 

consistent throughout the draft EIS. Without specific examples where such inconsistencies exist, BLM is 

unable to provide further response. The NSO term is intended to provide protection of surface resources 

by prohibiting surface disturbance. Changing the classification to allow across-the-board surface access 

would require an RMP amendment and appropriate NEPA and public participation. However, for existing 

leases or adjacent leases on state or private lands, it could become necessary to allow an off-setting well 

on the federal lease to address a drainage situation. 

Comment: there are instances in the DRMP where detailed data are lacking. For example, the maps 

showing areas of development intensity are not adequately detailed to enable determination of these 

development areas and analysis of the four management alternatives. More detailed maps and overlays 

should be included in the plan, and once the detailed maps are provided, an additional comment period 

should ensue.

Response: These levels of development intensity occur in the existing developed fields, as described in 

the draft EIS text. They are a description of where the development already exists, with provisions for 

expansion of the areas if necessary for development of those fields or other discoveries on existing leases. 

The maps provided in the draft EIS are adequate to convey to the public information regarding oil and gas 

management areas. No additional comment period is planned.

Comment: Alternative 4 has different areas of development intensity. “Intensively Developed Fields” 

criteria fits the DRMP, but the limitation to where it may be applied may be problematic. As mentioned 

earlier, the maps included in the DRMP lack sufficient detail and, therefore, make it difficult to determine 

exactly where these levels of development intensity occur. These maps will need clarification from BLM 

so that the reader can understand where development occurs. USQ requests that BLM prepare and include 

more detailed maps and and/or overlays in the FRMP so that the effects of the various alternatives can be 

properly analyzed. 

Response: These levels of development intensity occur in the existing developed fields, as described in 

the draft EIS text. They are a description of where the development already exists, with provisions for 

expansion of the areas if necessary for development of those fields or other discoveries on existing leases. 

The maps provided in the draft EIS are adequate to convey to the public information regarding oil and gas 

management areas.

A27-66 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Maps 

Comment: Maps Commentor WGFD Volume 2 of 2: We recommend including a map of CRC 

conservation population - by drainage or watersheds. Recommend including a map of the distribution of 

the 3 species within the management plan area. 

Response: This information has been added to Chapter 3 in the final EIS. 

Pinedale RMP A27-67 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

Air Quality 

General Comment Responses: 

Comments: 

• I’m not sure what all the hullabaloo with air quality is about on the Pinedale resource plan. First 

of all, your document very clearly says that under all of the alternative, the air quality remains 

very good. Secondly, it is not the BLM’s job to make decisions on air quality issues. The EPA 

and Wyoming department of environment take care of those issues and permits. 

• To protect the air quality of the Valley, the resource management plan needs to mandate air 

emission controls, establish a stringent emissions cap, eliminate loopholes to waive surface 

protections, and strictly define management objectives and monitoring and mitigation measures. 

• The BLM does not have authority to regulate emissions in Wyoming. With respect to actual oil 

and gas drilling and development operations, this fact was confirmed by the Pinedale BLM Field 

Office in a letter to EnCana and other oil and gas operators in December of 2006. In reversing an 

attempt by BLM to “implement drill rig emission reduction measures,” the BLM noted that it 

“has been administratively determined that BLM does not have the authority to regulate air 

quality. That authority rests with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.” See 

Letter from Associate Field Manager Roger Bankert, dated December 1, 2005 (sic).

Response: The WDEQ has the regulatory responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in 

Wyoming. BLM has the land management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, 

such as significance criteria and levels of concern. BLM will continue to support air quality monitoring 

and analysis.

Comments: 

• Visibility modeling completed for the recent Pinedale Anticline SEIS, indicates potential adverse 

impacts to the Bridger, Fitzpatrick, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness Areas are already occurring. 

To allow for further degradation would not be consistent with the resource protection provisions 

in CAA or the Wilderness Act. Further, in order to meet the national visibility goal (CAA §169a, 

42 U.S.C. § 7491) of preventing any future and remedying any existing visibility impairment, we 

must work together to attain existing and predicted visibility impairment below Forest Service 

visibility impairment thresholds. 

• If a Pinedale seventh grader is able to detect increased levels of air pollution associated with 

drilling rigs for her science fair project, I would say the pollution is significant. There is no way 

that drilling is in the best interests in the surrounding ecosystems. 

• Your preferred alternative will also likely result in increased pollution of an air shed deemed by 

Congress to remain the most pristine in America. This alternative is not acceptable.

Response: BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality 

from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern.

Comments: 

• Appendix F F-6 Figure 3-10 WDEQ-AQD The closest comprehensive wind measurements for the 

Pinedale RMP area were collected in the Jonah Field from 1999 – 2003. Please utilize the 

A27-68 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

monitoring conducted in the Jonah Field for dispersion, wind speed and direction, which is 

currently being utilized for the Pinedale Anticline Draft SEIS and can be obtained from Matt 

Anderson, BLM Pinedale Field Office. 

• 3.2.3 3-6 Visibility WDEQ-AQD The visibility data do not appear to be up to date with the most 

currently available data. Please update the text and figures. 

• The agencies’ discussion of the recent elevated ozone concentrations near the Jonah Field. is not 

accurate. Table 3-1 on page 3-4 and the text on 3-5 indicates that ozone concentrations were 

already at 97% of the NAAQS1WAAQ5 standard based on a partial year of measurement from 

Jonah Field in 2005. The agencies should review and assess the more complete data that has been 

gathered since that time, which contradicts the suggestion that the area is in danger of exceeding 

the AAQS for ozone based on this limited data. As the BLM is aware, the NAAQS for ozone is 

violated only when the 3-year average of the 4th highest maximum daily concentration exceeds 

the NAAQS standard. 40 C.F.R. 50 10(b) (2006).1 The isolated elevated ozone measurements 

observed on only a few days do not constitute a NAAQS or WAAQS violation, and the agencies 

should revise Table 3-1 to reflect this fact. As currently included, Table 3-1 is inaccurate and 

misleading.

Response: Air quality monitoring data were updated in the final EIS as they were available.

Comments: 

• Drilling has already destroyed the area just south of Pinedale with 1000’s of wells, that has had 

serious effects on air quality (with smog year around) 

• We have directly observed the major deterioration of air quality in the last four years, losses of 

important wildlife, loss of important habitats that sustained wildlife and allowed public use, and a 

progression of development from a prognosis of a few hundred wells to many thousands. Leaving 

areas looking like they are protected but open to change essentially says "We will protect this 

area unless it proves to be too lucrative for development". This equals no protection that we can 

count on. 

• With respect to visibility, the information in the RMP DEIS, as well as the information from the 

PAPA SDEIS, indicates that visibility in the area is improving. Visibility in the Bridger 

Wilderness Area, North Absaroka Wilderness Area, and Yellowstone National Park has improved 

on the 20% cleanest days and 20% middle days since the early 1990s. See PAPA SDEIS, pgs. 3-

58 - 3-59. The monitoring data indicate significant improvements in visibility on the cleanest and 

middle days in the last 2-3 years despite increased oil and gas development in PAPA. Id

Response: While ambient air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be 

worsening, monitored data at the present time are inconclusive.

Comments: 

• I believe that the BLM could impose more strict air quality requirements than Wyoming DEQ but 

could not allow lesser standards to be used. This means that drill rig air quality could be improved 

and production operations could be entirely enclosed without Wyoming DEQ involvement. 

• With respect to potential visibility impacts, the BLM’s authority is equally limited. Under the 

Federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”), a federal land manager’s authority is strictly limited to 

considering whether a “proposed major emitting facility will have an adverse impact” on 

Pinedale RMP A27-69 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

visibility within designated Class I areas. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(d)(2)(B) (2006). Under the CAA, the 

regulation of potential impacts to visibility, and authority over air quality in general, rests with 

the WDEQ. 42 U.S.C. § 7407(a) (2006). The goal of preventing impairment of visibility in Class 

I areas will be achieved through the regional haze state implementation plans (“SIPs”) that are 

being developed. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(J). Although generally, federal land managers with 

jurisdiction over Class I areas may participate in the development of regional haze SIPs, as noted 

above, the BLM has no such jurisdiction in Wyoming. 42 U.S.C: .§ 7491 (2006). Accordingly, 

the BLM has no authority over air quality, and cannot impose emissions restrictions, either 

directly or indirectly, on natural gas operations in southwest Wyoming, particularly if the overall 

goal is to reduce potential visibility impacts. 

• Don’t just “acknowledge” increases in air pollutants; specifically address accountability... 

through acceptance of scientific information, monitoring, full disclosures, and methods of 

enforcement! 

• As numerous conservation organizations and members of the public have maintained throughout 

this process, the BLM, instead of merely asking industry to use low-emission drill rigs, must 

mandate their use and set stringent emission caps. If these caps are breached, industry must be 

required to scale back its activities. The only sure-fire way to reduce emissions is to ease the pace 

of development. Also, BLM must implement a coordinated and thorough monitoring program 

that would provide a comprehensive picture of the quality of the Upper Green’s air with an eye 

toward determining how energy development affects it. Moreover, the BLM must assure that ongoing and future energy development does not compromise the air quality of Class I air sheds 

associated with nearby wilderness areas, national parks and other areas.

Response: WDEQ has the regulatory responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in 

Wyoming. BLM has the land management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, 

such as significance criteria and levels of concern. BLM will continue to support air quality monitoring 

and analysis. BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality 

from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern.

Unique Comments 

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes 

Comment: PAGE: 4-148, SECTION: 4.12.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Current construction 

and transportation access restrictions during summer and fall result in significant amounts of increased 

traffic, dust, and particulates that coincide with the fire season, which already loads the air with unhealthy 

levels of particulates. EXPLANATION: Policy puts construction traffic during fire season, so air is 

clouded with dust and fire emissions that may travel as far as Oregon and Idaho. Haze also detracts from 

the tourism industry.

Response: BLM agrees that construction and fire emissions can occur during the same time period. 

However, BLM does not feel that the inclusion of the recommended statement is appropriate because (1) 

fire emissions from prescribed burning was taken into account in the calculation of emissions, and (2) 

there is no evidence that the emissions from prescribed fire and construction will cause any increase in 

levels above the air quality standards.

Comment: 2-6 2.3.1, last paragraph. Please provide examples of lease stipulations that the BLM might 

include to alleviate air quality impacts. 

A27-70 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

Response: Please refer to the revised Pinedale supplemental EIS (SEIS) Section 4.9.3.5 and Appendix 11 

for details. 

Comment: 2-22 2.5.1 3rd paragraph. Please define the scope of the BLMs authority for minimizing 

emissions that could cause acid rain or violations of air quality standards. 

Response: BLM will work cooperatively with other agencies to encourage industry to adopt measures to 

reduce emissions. WDEQ has the regulatory responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations 

in Wyoming. BLM has the land management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future 

conditions, such as significance criteria and levels of concern. BLM will continue to support air quality 

monitoring and analysis. 

Comment: 2-50 2.5.3 AQ objective 3. Which of the action items help you reach this objective? 2-75 

2.5.4 AQ objective 3. Which of the action items help you reach this objective? 2-113 2.5.5 AQ objective 

3. Which of the action items help you reach this objective? 

Response: BLM believes all actions will help Objective 3, but that action c will be the most significant in 

achieving this objective (c. Special requirements such as best available control technologies [BACT], dust 

abatement, alternative power sources, and BMPs to alleviate air quality impacts would be included on a 

case-by-case basis in use authorizations [including oil and gas lease stipulations] within the scope of 

BLM’s authority). 

Comment: 2-197 Table2-34. Well numbers under Impacts on Minerals – leasable minerals does not 

agree with numbers provided on pages 2-196 and 197 under impacts on watershed and water quality. 

Response: The well numbers stated in Table 2-34 of the draft EIS have been revised to be consistent in 

the final EIS. 

Comment: 2-202 Table 2-34 Wind river front. There appears to be a wide range between alt 1 and alt 2, 

could you better describe expected impacts for alt 4? 

Response: Table 2-34 provides only a summary of the impacts. Please refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.18 for 

a detailed discussion of impacts to Special Management Areas, including the Wind River Front. 

Comment: 3-3 3.2.3 1st paragraph. This paragraph says air quality concentrations are in compliance with 

standards and that air quality is very good. Table 3-1 however shows that SO2 is at 100% of the standard 

and ozone is at 97% of the standard. This should not be rated as very good. Also, Table 3-1 shows that 

PM2.5 and SO2 are measured at the Jonah Field. The Jonah monitoring station has neither of these types 

of monitors. Please validate your data source. 3-5 Sulfur Dioxide As stated above this was not measured 

at the Jonah site. 

Response: This was an error in the draft EIS that has been corrected in the final EIS. The concentrations 

of SO2 are 10% and 19% of the NAAQS and WAAQS, respectively. BLM defers to WDEQ for 

background air quality data. 

Comment: 3-5 Ozone, 2nd paragraph. Would this paragraph better fit in chapter 3? 

Response: This paragraph is indeed included in Chapter 3. 

Pinedale RMP A27-71 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

Comment: 3-5 Ozone, 3rd paragraph. Why are you comparing the Pinedale and Yellowstone sites to the 

FS standards, but not the Jonah readings? In the spirit of full disclosure, that number should also be 

plotted on figure 3-11. 

Response: Figure 3-11 has been updated with the data from Boulder and Jonah. 

Comment: 3-6 Particulate Matter. As stated above this was not measured at the Jonah site. 

13-6 Visibility, 3rd paragraph. BLM needs to note that the IMPROVE monitor was not placed to monitor 

impacts from ongoing nearby developments. And, it is likely not receiving all Due to the location it is 

likely that the monitor would pick up impacts only on the worst days, this supports fig. 3-13.impacts from 

those developments. 

Response: BLM defers to WDEQ for background air quality data. 

Comment: 3-6 Visibility, 4th paragraph. In fig.3-13, it looks as though the worst days are getting worse. 

It would be beneficial if you provided additional explanation that these 3 grouping should all be getting 

better. 3-6 Atmospheric Deposition Please change to be: ....is reported as the mass of material deposited 

on an area over a given segment of time (kilogram per hectare per year). 

Response: Your comment has been noted. Even though visibility conditions appear to be getting worse, 

monitored data do not indicate this. 

Comment: 3-8 Total Deposition. Please either delete the description of the Fox thresholds. Or add a 

comment that the FS does not believe these to be protective. The Fox document was a guidance document 

and was not intended to establish “thresholds” for N or S. With recent science available, the FS believes 

these numbers are set way to high to be protective of resources. 

13-9 Table 3-2 Precipitation pH. Is there a reason South Pass data was not addressed here? It generally 

appears to have a lower pH compared to the other sites. 

3-9 Table 3-2 Total Deposition. Is there a reason FS Bulk Deposition data was not included as a data 

source? 

Response: BLM defers to WDEQ for background air quality data. 

Comment: 4-238 2nd paragraph. Is the statement here true when Table 3-1 shows SO2 at 100% of the 

standard? 

Response: This was an error in the draft EIS that has been corrected in the final EIS. The concentrations 

of SO2 are 10% and 19% of the NAAQS and WAAQS, respectively. 

Comment: 4-239 Table 4-19. The BLM should provide the number of days the Jonah project modeled 

over the 1.0 dv threshold. 4-239 Table 4-18. This table should also provide information on modeled 

cumulative impacts to visibility for the Pinedale Anticline. 

Response: The data from Jonah are dated. The final EIS has been revised to include updated data from 

the Pinedale Anticline SEIS. 

A27-72 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

Comment: 4-240 2nd paragraph. The FS would recommend that the BLM conduct the modeling for the 

project area using the State of the Atmosphere model prior to finalizing the RMP revision. This would 

provide much more detailed and quantifiable information to the public and the decision makers. 

Response: The State of the Atmosphere model will not be ready in time to incorporate it into the RMP 

analysis. 

Comment: Item: Page A19-30, Qualitative Analysis Approach “CONCLUSIONS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS A qualitative emission comparison approach was selected for analysis of 

impacts on air quality.” Comment: There is merit in conducting a qualitative analysis based on emission 

growth, however, some quantitative information is available from previous EISs in the area. We suggest 

BLM should incorporate that information into the RMP document. 

Response: Summaries of the emissions inventory are presented in both the Jonah and Pinedale EISs. 

Comment: Item: Page A19-29, Ozone “Given the low ambient concentrations that exist in the planning 

area for all of the pollutants except O3, it is expected that, for any alternative, the increase in emissions of 

CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 will not cause any exceedance of state or federal ambient air quality 

standards.” Comment: It is recommended that the above paragraph be changed as follows: “Given the low 

ambient concentrations that exist in the planning area for all of the pollutants except O3, it is expected 

that, for any alternative, the increase in emissions of CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 will not cause 

any exceedance of state or federal ambient air quality standards. A more complete understanding of ozone 

formation is required to understand elevated ozone levels that have been observed in the winter in 

Pinedale. Wyoming DEQ is currently investigating the relationship between emissions in the area and 

winter time meteorological stagnation conditions.” 

Item: Page A19-29, Quantitative Relationships “Because a quantitative relationship between the expected 

air emissions calculated above and the subsequent potential impacts on ambient criteria pollutant 

concentrations, visibility, atmospheric deposition, or ozone are not known, it is not possible to draw any 

conclusions regarding potential impacts on these air quality values from any alternative. BLM intends to 

make quantitative estimates of these impacts for project-specific EISs and in the statewide air quality 

analysis.” Comment: It is recommended that the above paragraph be changed as follows: “Because a 

quantitative relationship between the expected air emissions calculated above and the subsequent 

potential impacts on ambient criteria pollutant concentrations, visibility, atmospheric deposition, or ozone 

are not known, it is not possible to draw any conclusions regarding potential impacts on these air quality 

values from any alternative. BLM intends to make quantitative estimates of these impacts for projectspecific EIS’s.” 

Item: Page A19-29, IMPROVE data analysis “Because a quantitative relationship between the expected 

air emissions calculated above and the subsequent potential cumulative impacts on the air quality values 

of visibility, atmospheric deposition, or ozone are not known, it is not possible to quantify potential 

impacts on these air quality values from the sources in the ROI. However, because air quality analyses 

from recent energy development projects, such as the Pinedale Anticline EIS (1999), estimate potential 

impacts on visibility, emissions described in Section 4.2 may contribute to significant impacts on 

visibility.” Comment: It is recommended that BLM provide an analysis of the IMPROVE monitoring data 

in the region. That data indicates that there has been no change in visibility or nitrate concentrations even 

though there has been substantial growth in emissions. This finding is not consistent with the modeling 

data referenced above in the quote from the RMP. 

Response: BLM believes the document states/indicates the same thing. 

Pinedale RMP A27-73 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

Comment: Item: Page A19-31, Table A19-16. Comment: Not all of the mitigation measures listed in 

Table A19-16 are appropriate for consideration. As indicated in the following, some of these technologies 

are not technically feasible, unproven or may result in unsafe operations. It is important to stress that 

WDEQ has a very aggressive New Source Review (NSR) program that will ensure that new sources 

achieve the maximum cost effective reduction possible. It is inappropriate for BLM to suggest that such 

mitigation options should be considered in the planning assessment. It is true that advances in technology 

may result in lower emissions during the time covered by the RMP. 

Response: BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality 

from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. 

Comment: The BLM must also delete its Management Objectives under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 because 

they are beyond the BLM’s authority. For example, the BLM’s first Management Objective is to 

“maintain concentrations of criteria pollutants associated with management action in compliance with 

applicable state and federal Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS).” See RMP DEIS, pgs. 2-50, 2-75, 2-

113. Both the BLM and the IBLA have recognized that the WDEQ, with oversight from the EPA, has the 

authority to enforce AAQS in Wyoming. See RMP DEIS, pg. 3-9; Wyoming Outdoor Council, et al., 

IBLA No. 2006-155, at 12 (June 28, 2006). 

Response: BLM has made it clear that WDEQ has regulatory authority. It is reasonable for BLM to 

coordinate with WDEQ, a cooperating agency in this RMP effort, to align BLM management goals with 

WDEQ monitoring and enforcement responsibilities.

Comment: Additionally, because only the WDEQ has the authority to enforce PSD Increments in 

Wyoming, BLM’s second Management Objective to “maintain concentrations of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) pollutants” is entirely inappropriate. Opponents to oil and gas 

development could use these Management Objectives to argue the BLM cannot authorize actions that 

may increase emissions or have potential visibility impacts in the planning area. The BLM must remove 

all four of its inappropriate Management Objectives under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

Response: It is reasonable for BLM’s goal to be compliance with WDEQ-administered standards. 

Comment: Section 3.2.3 Ambient Air Quality Concentrations The analysis in the RMP DEIS 

demonstrates that air quality in southwest Wyoming is very good. See RMP DEIS, pg. 3-3 (“air quality in 

the planning area is considered very good”). Emissions data collected near the PAPA demonstrate 

compliance with all National and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS/WAAQS”). See 

RMP DEIS, pgs. 3-3 - 3-4, 3-8. The BLM should more clearly explain this information in order to correct 

the public’s perception that air quality in the area has declined significantly.

Response: It is possible for air quality to decline in the southwest Wyoming region and still be 

considered “very good” in comparison with the rest of the nation. Data indicate that, for some pollutants, 

air quality has declined, although generally not to the point of violating WDEQ standards. 

While ambient air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, 

monitored data at the present time are inconclusive.

Comment: Section 4.2 - Air Quality The BLM incorrectly states on page 4-6 of the DEIS that oil and gas 

exploration and development will have the greatest impact on air quality within the planning area. 

Previous modeling performed by the State of Wyoming, EPA, and the Forest Service indicated that 90% 

of the air quality impact at the Bridger Wilderness area is attributable to distant sources outside of 

Wyoming, not local sources within the Pinedale Resource Area. See The Southwest Wyoming Regional 

A27-74 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

CALPUFF Air Quality Modeling Study: Final Report (SWWYTAF) (February 2001). Oil and gas 

development may contribute to emissions in the region, but the SWWYTAF study demonstrated the 

overwhelming majority of emissions impacting air quality in Wyoming, and particularly the Pinedale 

Resource Area, are outside of Wyoming. The statement on page 4-6 must be revised to reflect the 

information from the SWWYTAF study.

Response: The emission inventory was designed to focus on potential impacts from BLM activities.

Comment: The BLM must also delete Management Action c. under each of the proposed alternatives that 

would supposedly authorize the BLM to impose special requirements, including lease stipulations, to 

eliminate emissions. 

Response: Management action c. clearly states that only mitigations within BLM’s authority to require 

would be included.

Comment: In Section 3.2.1 is a paragraph on wind velocity history in the planning area. It correctly cites 

the effect of local topography upon speed and direction.) However, it fails to cite more critical variables, 

namely meteorological phenomena associated with the jet stream’s influence upon weather system 

movements through the area and the highly changing nature of this history on a yearly, monthly and even 

weekly basis. 

Response: Refer to Figure 3-10 in the draft EIS, which shows a wind rose for the Pinedale area. At the 

present time, such a figure really is the best representation of wind speed and direction over an extended 

period of time because air pollutant concentrations are more dependent on local, smaller-scale 

meteorology. 

Comment: These influences call into question the validity of the implied meaning of Figure 3-10 that it 

represents “typical” conditions. This figure invokes data for 2001 and is averaged over the entire year. 

This is highly misleading and it can be argued that any single past year represents antiquated information 

which cannot be relied upon in isolation to depict In Section 3.2.1 is a paragraph on wind velocity history 

in the planning area. It correctly cites the effect of local topography upon speed and direction.) However, 

it fails to cite more critical variables, namely meteorological phenomena associated with the jet stream’s 

influence upon weather system movements through the area and the highly changing nature of this history 

on a yearly, monthly and even weekly basis, what can be expected in the future. The same is true month 

to month within any year. Thus, this paragraph appears to lay a foundation for implied but dubious 

arguments that the influence of winds upon the planning area are predictable regarding their transport of 

industry pollutants.

Response: Refer to Figure 3-10 in the draft EIS, which shows a wind rose for the Pinedale area. At the 

present time such a figure is the best representation of wind speed and direction over an extended period 

of time because air pollutant concentrations are more dependent on local, smaller-scale meteorology.

Comment: Section 3.2.3 alludes to data collected from nearest applicable monitoring stations as20 

“indicating” that current concentrations of pollutants are in compliance and that air ~~ £T quality in the 

planning area is considered very good.2 It then admits to a fundamental weakness in the assertion. ...that 

current and complete data are not available. It is an inconvenient truth that the very nature of the 

monitoring network is inadequate both for reasons of its sparsely sited nature and for the fact that data 

from the network requires on the order of one year to be collected analyzed and disseminated. By that 

time the gas industry has completed at least an additional 1000 new wells with their characteristic forms 

and volumes of emissions. It is therefore irrelevant to assert that the State of Wyoming has determined 

that the Pinedale Region is in compliance. The fact is, federal statutory guidance containing standards and 

Pinedale RMP A27-75 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

PSD stipulations are inadequate because they were developed in an environment apart from the high 

plains and mountainous surroundings that are the Pinedale Region and are too slow to allow timely 

response to the rate of well development.

Response: BLM relied on the State of Wyoming for the data. WDEQ provided BLM the air quality 

monitoring data. Although some of the data are outdated, it reflects the state’s opinion of the best 

available data to characterize the background.

Comment: Section 3.2.3 alludes to sulfur dioxide data collected from the Jonah field in 2005.3 This 

appears to be a fabrication. The section refers to the SO2 data in the context of monitoring stations 

operated by WAAQS. At that time there was one station located in the south central portion of Jonah and 

one station located off Paradise Road west of Boulder. Neither are equipped with SO2 monitors. The R P 

authors would do well to check their facts rather than falsify their arguments for minimal air quality 

impacts.

Response: BLM relied on the State of Wyoming for the data. WDEQ provided BLM the air quality 

monitoring data. Although some of the data are outdated, it reflects the state’s opinion of the best 

available data to characterize the background.

Comment: The “Visibility” subsection of Section 3.2.3 cites IMPROVE aerosol monitoring stations, one 

of which is described as being located in the Bridger Wilderness near Pinedale. There follows the 

declaration that Bridger Wilderness Area visibility data reveal no evidence of worsening conditions.4 

This statement is a falsehood by omission of the fact that this station cannot assess Jonah impacts. Both I 

and an air quality scientist for the U.S. Forest Service have determined that this station is improperly 

positioned to assess impacts from the Jonah or the Anticline. I conducted a study of transmissometer data 

under contract in 2005 from this station and found this to be true primarily because of regional wind 

patterns, the latter being a topic I have studied since 2003. 

Response: BLM believes that the Bridger Station is the best available location to determine potential 

impacts from Pinedale RMP activities on visibility at the Bridger Wilderness Area. While ambient air 

quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, monitored data at the 

present time are inconclusive. 

Comment: Section 3.2.5 contains the statement that BLM “cooperates” in the operation of 

NADP/National Trends Network and collection of basic remote weather station data. This is essentially a 

false statement.5 BLM has consistently broken its commitments and limited its cooperation to words that 

remain unfulfilled. Furthermore, not only has BLM not contributed a single dollar to the effort, it even 

dropped the funding line item from its budget in 2006 and failed to include it in previous years. A glaring 

example is its commitment to “cooperate” in the effort to track NOx and other pollutants as the Jonah and 

Anticline projects have gathered momentum. The NOx report was not produced beginning in the very 

year that NOx exceedances were discovered and the report was not reinstated until pressure from the 

PAWG Air Quality Task Group forced the issue in 2006. As for the other air pollutants, no reporting has 

been initiated by BLM proper.

Response: BLM pays for three NADP stations in Wyoming: Newcastle, Sinks Canyons, and Pinedale; 

and one Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System station in Pinedale.

Comment: Section 4.2.2 states that a qualitative approach was used to access air quality impacts and that 

a quantitative approach will be applied to specific future development proposals but then proceeds to 

present a quantitative analysis of each alternative. As the baseline for comparison, it uses an inventory of 

A27-76 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

7,724 tons per year derived from 2001 information, citing that as the “best available information” thus 

ceding the fact that the information is dubious. The results are as follows: 

• Alternative 1 No Action (continue development as is): 23,524 tons per year, 3 times baseline 

• Alternative 2 Maximize Oil & Gas Recovery: 25,050 tons per year, 3 1/4 times baseline 

• Alternative 3 Maximize Environmental Protection: 18,877 tons per year, 21/2 times baseline 

There is no significant difference between alternatives 1, 2, and 4. The difference between alternatives 3 

and the others is minor. BLM states that these calculations are based upon “accepted” emission factors 

recognized by State and federal regulators. These factors were developed on the basis of studies 

conducted at sea level conditions and are highly doubtful for our altitude and climate. 

• Alternative 4 Preferred Alternative: 23,170 tons per year, 3 times baseline 

Response: Tables A19-6, A19-7, and A19-8 in the draft EIS Appendix 19 quantify potential emissions 

from BLM activities in the Pinedale RMP planning area for each alternative and year. Potential impacts 

are described by including as an example the cumulative impacts from the Jonah and Pinedale 

Supplemental EIS analyses. 

The range of alternatives was based on surface disturbance and magnitude of oil and gas development 

rather than on emissions or air quality. Because infill of the Jonah and Anticline fields would continue 

under all alternatives, differences in emissions between the alternatives are small. The emission factors 

used do indeed apply to the Pinedale area and altitude.

Comment: All predicted quantities are derived from computer modeling which has failed dismally for the 

Jonah and Anticline. Those model results predicted levels that have been exceeded by five times. This 

was stated explicitly in the Anticline SETS as follows: “... NEPA analysis (BLM, 2004a) disclosed that 

the NOx emissions from all sources in the PAPA had exceeded the 693.50 tpy analysis threshold 

specified in the PAPA ROD, mostly due to the increased number of drilling rigs.” [Section 2.3.1.3] 

BLM states that these calculations “assume” emission growth will be constant and linear with time. This 

assumption has been proven false in the Jonah and on the Mesa by BLM’s approval to operators in those 

fields to far exceed their originally declared rates of drilling and development. The Anticline SEIS 

contains explicit admissions that refute the above quoted assumption: 

• “Since the PAPA ROD (BLM, 2000b) was issued, natural gas development within the PAPA has 

occurred at a faster pace than was analyzed in the PAPA DEIS (BLM, 1999a).” [Sections 2.3.1.3, 

3.11.2 ] 

• “Restrictions on numbers of drilling rigs, present at any time within the PAPA were not carried 

forward from the PAPA DEIS (BLM, 1999a) and the PAPA FEIS (BLM, 2000a) to the PAPA 

SOD (BLM, 2000b). BLM concluded that limiting the number of rigs (on federal and nonfederal 

ands and minerals, combined) would be difficult to manage.” [Section 2.3.3] 

• “Subsequent NEPA analysis (BLM, 2004a) disclosed that the NOx emissions from all sources in 

the PAPA had exceeded the 693.50 tpy analysis threshold specified in the PAPA ROD, mostly 

due to the increased number of drilling rigs.” [Section 2.3.1.3] 

• “Since the PAPA rod (BLM, 2000b) was issued, natural gas development within the PAPA has 

occurred at a pace greater than was analyzed inn the PAPA EIS. Assumptions of drill rig 

emissions and NO, emissions from the combination of construction/drilling, well production, and 

compression have been exceeded.” Section 2.4.2.2) 

Pinedale RMP A27-77 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

There is therefore no reason for the public to expect BLM to hold clown future increases in rates of 

drilling which industry regularly seeks.

Response: Lower atmosphere modeling is appropriate.

Comment: Section 4.19.3 refers to a statewide inventory of emissions-conducted by ‘1’KC Mariah and 

asserts that there will be only an “increase” in future emissions.8 Here again is a quantitative effort to 

divine the future based upon dubious data. The bland statement that “emissions will increase” is a typical 

BLM tactic of “low-balling” that cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, reliance upon TRC Mariah has 

become unacceptable m light of the fact that this firm has been effectively a sole source contractor, 

selected and paid by industry for EIS assessments and relied upon exclusively by BLM and D Q. The 

time has long past for an additional contractor to be brought on board to conduct an independent analysis 

for the purpose of nullifying potential dogmatic thinking that can result from too close a relationship 

between a sole source contractor and its customer.

Response: The emissions from the permitted sources in the statewide emission inventory are included 

only to describe current emissions in the planning area and in Wyoming. It is BLM practice to estimate 

emissions using assumptions that are reasonable but conservative or most likely. 

BLM uses several air quality contractors. BLM pays for the contractor to develop the emissions 

inventories for any RMP. Although industry pays the air quality contractor for a project-specific air 

quality analysis, BLM oversees and manages the contract.

Comment: Section 4.19.3 goes on to make an oxymoronic assertion. It states that BLM concludes that 

increases in certain criteria pollutants in the planning area “would be unlikely to cause exceedance of ...air 

quality standards.” It then reverses this observation by declaring that “a quantitative relationship” (here 

we again see contradiction of the earlier claim of a qualitative approach only) between 

“expected...calculated” emissions and impacts on ozone, visibility, and atmospheric deposition are not 

known, so it is not possible to quantify impacts upon those air quality values.9

Response: The suggested change has been included in the final EIS.

Comment: The paragraph, Section 4.19.3 concludes by rightly observing that quantification cannot be 

achieved because of the complexity of the formation mechanism for ozone,-visibility impairment, and 

atmospheric deposition? This paragraph and especially the last statement offers conclusive evidence that 

BLM must cease its positive outcome based fortune telling of the future of the local atmosphere. BLM 

must implement an immediate slow-down of oil and gas development in the planning area until operators 

can demonstrate convincing capabilities to conduct business using vastly improved state-of-the-art in 

drilling and production that will result in reduction of all emissions to year 2000 levels plus ten percent.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of valid existing oil and gas leases. 

WDEQ is responsible for regulating air emissions due to drilling.

Comment: Section 4.19.3 concludes with a completely false statement that it would be inappropriate to 

infer planning area impacts directly from impacts due to the Jonah and Anticline projects. This is classic 

BLM “eyes wide shut” logic that denies a host of empirical geographic and meteorological lines of 

evidence. It is a fact that the Wyoming and Wind River mountain ranges constitute a barrier to the 

planning area. This bather controls the behavior of wind and weather systems’ movement into, within, 

and out of the planning area. My recent years of study of surface wind behavior in the area has shown that 

emissions from the projects will be transported into the surrounding Class I and Class II regions in 

varying amounts, depending upon the year and the month of observation. Upper level winds are an 

A27-78 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

unknown because there are no upper level sounding stations within the planning area. Furthermore, the 

mountain barrier makes the planning area a large bowl which traps air masses in both winter and summer. 

This results in episodes of concentration of project pollutants which are transported into the mountains in 

a manner, indicative of a fluid seeking its common level....which the air mass in the planning area 

essentially becomes. 

Response: The potential impacts from Jonah and Pinedale Anticline Supplemental EIS are included as 

examples. Potential impacts from activities within the planning area would likely be similar to the Jonah 

or Pinedale Anticline Supplemental EIS impacts, but would probably not be exactly the same. 

Comment: Finally, BLM states an excellent reason for why the above cited inference statement is false, 

although BLM attempts to apply the reason in a reverse fashion. It observes that energy project 

information is out of date because it fails to include projects authorized after 2003.11 This is in fact an 

additional and compelling reason why the project sub-area must be seen to directly impact the planning 

area. The impacts already documented on the Class I and Class II regions and being experienced by 

communities in the area (notwithstanding BLM refusal to recognize same) will be inevitably amplified by 

further unregulated growth of oil and gas development.

Response: The air quality analysis has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: Within the Draft RMP, the only mitigation efforts suggested to improve air quality are: 

• “Use water and dust suppressant on roads to achieve 50% control of road dust on 90% of BLM 

resource roads 

• Consider air quality levels in the approval of current actions 

• Post speed limits on roads 

• Implement transportation planning to reduce vehicle traffic” 

(p. A5-2) There is no mention of putting a cap on diesel exhaust or limiting particulate matter, which may 

be significant contributors to the obscuring “gray haze.” It is unlikely that this haze is due solely to truck 

traffic on dirt roads. The increase in diesel exhaust and particulate matter from truck traffic that services 

wells, from the construction equipment that grades and improves roads to new well pads, from powerful 

drilling rigs, and from producing wells, contributes to diminishing air quality. These emissions need to be 

more stringently regulated, and the RMP is the appropriate document to address potential regulations.

Response: Additional mitigations are suggested on page 2-120 of the draft EIS. BLM does not have 

authority to regulate diesel exhaust or particulate matter.

Comment: Surprisingly, the perception of backpackers and mountaineers who have noticed a 

deterioration in air quality is not reflected in the analysis of the BLM. According to Figure 3-12, which 

measures the annual visibility in Bridger Wilderness, the average has remained fairly consistent, staying 

between 6 and 8 deciviews of visibility on average between 1989 and 2003. It appears that the annual 

visibility reported by the “Inter-Agency Monitoring or Protected Visual Environments Bridger station 

BRID” is inconsistent with on-the-ground observations. NOLS would like to see this inconsistency 

addressed in the Final EIS. Assessing more recent data might be helpful in light of the increase in 

development since 2003.

Response: The monitoring data have been updated in the final EIS. While ambient air quality conditions 

and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, monitored data at the present time are 

inconclusive.

Pinedale RMP A27-79 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

Comment: The DRMP references tier 4 emission requirements, in particular on page 2-120, where it is 

stated: “Exceptions would be considered to allow year-round drilling and development operations on new 

and existing leases in the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, Big Piney-La Barge, Deer Hills, and Castle Creek oil 

and gas fields that are currently encumbered by seasonal restrictions. Such exceptions would be subject to 

additional environmental analysis and the leaseholder/operator implementing offsetting mitigation such 

as, but not limited to: habitat enhancement; development of a liquids (condensate and produced water) 

gathering system to reduce truck traffic; remote telemetry; drilling of multiple wells from new and 

existing pads; directional drilling; noise reduction for drilling and completion operations; flareless 

completion; tier 4 or better emission equipment; bussing of crews; concentration of development; closed 

drilling systems; use of transportation plan that reduces road density; compensation mitigation; and 

monitoring of wildlife populations.” 

While this statement properly articulates commitments that USQ has already made in the proposed action 

of the draft SEIS, the requirement to tier 4 emission technology is inappropriate on several fronts. The 

technology for tier 4 emission standards is not yet available and, therefore, its efficacy has not been 

technically proven. In addition, tier 4 engines will not be required to be manufactured until 2010. USQ 

recommends that reference to tier 4 standards be deleted due to these reasons and be replaced with a 

statement that specific technology will be omitted from the RMP ROD to allow for technological 

advances and that the agency with air quality primacy, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ), will monitor and ensure a reduction in NOx emissions in order to meet established visibility 

goals.

Response: The text does not require Tier 4 technology. It is provided as an example of mitigation that 

might be appropriate in future oil and gas development projects. BLM will continue to require proponents 

to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality from the proposed project are below applicable 

significance criteria or levels of concern. 

Comment: Page Number & Issue: 3-9: Statements in DRMP support the fact that the State of Wyoming 

has primacy on air. Recommendations: USQ recommends that the state primacy over air issues be 

reinforced throughout the entire DRMP.

Response: BLM finds the emphasis adequate.

Comment: Page 2-113: “Objective 4 Reduce atmospheric deposition pollutants to levels below generally 

accepted LOCs and LACs.” Recommendations: Define acronyms “LOCs and LACs” Number & Issue:

Response: Level of concern (LOC) and level of acceptable change (LAC) have been added to the list of 

acronyms in the final EIS.

Comment: The current level of gas well development in the Jonah Field/ Pinedale Anticline area has 

resulted in unacceptable impacts to air quality to a Class I wilderness air shed (protected under the 

Wilderness Act of 1964). Table 4-18 shows that regional haze standards have been violated and that 

conditions will continue to deteriorate with additional oil and gas development. 

The RMP, which allows further oil and gas development, should not be considered until compliance with 

federal law can be better demonstrated. 

Under Cumulative Impacts Table 4-18 shows that PM10 and NO2 levels will exceed that increments 

allowed under EPA’s PSD regulations. However it seems clear that the actual exceedances could be far 

greater than modeled. The document states that reasonably foreseeable development was estimated using 

qualitative means. 

A27-80 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

The RMP cannot proceed until it has been demonstrated that it will comply with federal air quality laws. 

BLM has a statutory responsibility and moral duty to comply with these laws.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of valid existing oil and gas leases. 

While ambient air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, 

monitored data at the present time are inconclusive. BLM will continue to require proponents to 

demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality from the proposed project are below applicable 

significance criteria or levels of concern. NEPA does not require a quantitative study. The Air Resources 

Team (air staff from WDEQ, EPA, USFS, NPS, and BLM) worked collaboratively with BLM on the 

analysis methodology. WDEQ has the regulatory responsibility and authority to enforce air quality 

regulations in Wyoming. BLM has the land management authority and responsibility to adopt desired 

future conditions, such as significance criteria and levels of concern. BLM will continue to support air 

quality monitoring and analysis. 

Comment: 3.2.3 3-4 Table 3-1; SO2 section WDEQ-AQD The Sulfur Dioxide Data was footnoted 

incorrectly in the Pinedale Anticline DSEIS, and was in fact collected at the La Barge Study 

Area/Northwest Pipeline craven Creek site in 1982-1983. No Sulfur Dioxide data was collected in the 

Jonah Field. Please revise table and relevant text accordingly.

Response: This has been corrected in the final EIS.

Comment: 3.2.3 3-7 thru 3-8 Deposition (Wet & Dry) WDEQ-AQD Yellowstone is too far removed 

from the Pinedale RMP area and thus should be removed from the text and figures.

Response: BLM includes air quality monitoring data located within the potentially affected environment, 

as required by NEPA.

Comment: Appendix F F-7 thru F-14 Figures 3-11, 3-13, 3-17, 3-20, 3-22, 3-26 WDEQ-AQD 

Yellowstone is too far removed from the Pinedale RMP area and thus should be removed from the text 

and figures.

Response: BLM includes air quality monitoring data located within the potentially affected environment, 

as required by NEPA.

Comment: 3.2.3 3-5 Ozone WDEQ-AQD Please include discussion of the elevated ozone episodes, 

which is also utilized for the Pinedale Anticline Draft SEIS and can be obtained from Matt Anderson, 

BLM Pinedale Field Office.

Response: This has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: 3.2.3 3-5 Ozone WDEQ-AQD Yellowstone is too far removed from the Pinedale RMP area 

and thus should be removed from the text and figures.

Response: BLM includes air quality monitoring data located within the potentially affected environment, 

as required by NEPA.

Comment: 3.2.3 3-5 Sulfur Dioxide WDEQ-AQD When the ambient air background concentrations in 

Table 3-1 are updated, the corresponding text also needs to be updated for Sulfur Dioxide.

Response: This has been updated in the final EIS.

Pinedale RMP A27-81 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

Comment: 3.2.4 3-8 thru 3-6 Table 3-2 WDEQ-AQD There is adequate data from the Pinedale area. It is 

not necessary to use Yellowstone, which is far removed from the RMP area. Yellowstone should be 

removed from the text and figures.

Response: BLM includes air quality monitoring data located within the potentially affected environment, 

as required by NEPA.

Comment: 4.19.3 4-238 Last Full Par. WDEQ-AQD It appears that references to the Desolation Flats and 

Atlantic Rim projects are an artifact of copying and pasting from the Rawlins RMP. This text should 

reference the most up to date air quality analyses for projects within the Pinedale RMP area, i.e., Pinedale 

Anticline SEIS (as a DSEIS was published before the RMP DEIS) and Jonah Infill. 

Response: This has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: 4.19.3 4-238 thru 4-239 Table 4-18 WDEQ-AQD As the Pinedale Anticline Draft SEIS was 

published before the Pinedale RMP DEIS, this table should reference the most up to date air quality 

analyses results. This table should summarize potential impacts as disclosed in the Pinedale Anticline 

SEIS, and not 2005 air quality impacts.

Response: This has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: 4.19.3 4-240 1st Full Paragraph WDEQ-AQD Discussion of the elevated ozone episodes is to 

be utilized for the Pinedale Anticline Draft SEIS and can be obtained from Matt Anderson, BLM Pinedale 

Field Office.

Response: This has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: Appendix F F-24 WDEQ-AQD Figure 4-22 This figure should be deleted. Each pollutant has 

unique effects on air quality and the environment, and therefore is addressed separately when managing 

air quality. To truly evaluate the differences between the various alternatives and how they will affect air 

quality, the changes in emissions should be represented by pollutant - not summed.

Response: Although BLM understands the concern about total emissions, the presentation of the total 

emissions is appropriate and gives a general comparison of emissions for each alternative for each year. 

In fact, the total emissions approach has been used before in the Wyoming Climate Atlas (Curtis and 

Grimes http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/wrds/wsc/climateatlas/quality.html). However, BLM has addressed 

this concern by breaking down each pollutant’s contribution to the total values in both Table A19-11 and 

Figure 4-1 of the draft EIS.

Comment: Appendix 19 A19-10 Table A19-3 WDEQ-AQD On September 21, 2006, EPA announced 

final revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter. The revision 

strengthens the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 to 35 ug/m3 and revokes the annual PM10 standard of 

50 ug/m3. EPA retained the existing annual PM2.5 standard of 15 ug/m3 and the 24-hour PM10 standard 

of 150 ug/m3. The final rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register and is not effective until 

60 days after publication in the Federal Register. After the final rule becomes effective, the State of 

Wyoming will enter into rulemaking to revise the Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, 

the NAAQS and WAAQS percent of standards data should be revised accordingly.

Response: This has been updated in the final EIS.

A27-82 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

Comment: Appendix 19 A19-11 Table A19-3 WDEQ-AQD The Sulfur Dioxide Data was footnoted 

incorrectly in the Pinedale Anticline DSEIS, and was in fact collected at the La Barge Study 

Area/Northwest Pipeline craven Creek site in 1982-1983. No Sulfur Dioxide data was collected in the 

Jonah Field. Please revise table and relevant text accordingly.

Response: This has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: Appendix 19 A19-11 Table A19-3 WDEQ-AQD Table is duplicated within itself. That is, all 

pollutant information is listed twice.

Response: This has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: Appendix 19 A19-14 Air Quality Impact Assessment, End 2nd full para. WDEQ-AQD 

Flaring during well completion is limited in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline Fields in association with 

permits issued by the WDEQ-AQD. This would be an appropriate place to reference that permitting. A 

reference to that permitting is to be utilized for the Pinedale Anticline Draft SEIS and can be obtained 

from Matt Anderson, BLM Pinedale Field Office.

Response: This has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: Appendix 19 A19-27 Table A19-10 WDEQ-AQD This table should be deleted. Each 

pollutant has unique effects on air quality and the environment, and therefore is addressed separately 

when managing air quality. To truly evaluate the differences between the various alternatives and how 

they will affect air quality, the changes in emissions should be represented by pollutant - not summed.

Response: Although we understand the concern about total emissions, we feel that the presentation of the 

total emissions is appropriate and gives a general comparison of emissions for each alternative for each 

year. In fact, the total emissions approach has been used before in the Wyoming Climate Atlas (Curtis and 

Grimes http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/wrds/wsc/climateatlas/quality.html). However, BLM has addressed 

this concern by breaking down each pollutant’s contribution to the total values in both Table A19-11 and 

Figure 4-1 of the draft EIS.

Comment: Appendix 19 A19-29 Last Paragraph WDEQ-AQD As the Pinedale Anticline Draft SEIS was 

published before the Pinedale RMP DEIS, the RMP DEIS text should directly incorporate the most up to 

date air quality analyses results which can be obtained from Matt Anderson, BLM Pinedale Field Office.

Response: This has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: All Alternatives analyzed for the proposed RMP have large increases in emissions (193% to 

260%) predicted between now and 2021. It is a reasonable assumption that selection of any of these 

alternatives without additional mitigation will exacerbate current conditions. 

The BLM conducted a qualitative analysis of air quality for the RMP revision and determined that 

“...emissions described in section 4.2 may contribute to significant impacts on visibility” (pg.A19-29).

Response: BLM analyzed an appropriate range of alternatives in the draft EIS. Specific mitigations for 

air quality impacts due to the Jonah and Anticline developments are provided in the EIS and ROD for 

those fields. BLM is committed to supporting the State of the Atmosphere program (unfortunately we do 

not have results at the present time) and air quality monitoring. Further commitments will be in the ROD. 

At the present time, the BLM Casper Field Office is entering the implementation phase of the Casper 

RMP. Implementation for the Pinedale RMP could be similar. 

Pinedale RMP A27-83 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

Comment: The BLM conducted a qualitative analysis of air quality for the RMP revision and 

determined that “...emissions described in section 4.2 may contribute to significant impacts on visibility” 

(pg.A19-29). 

The BLM also states, “Development of the additional oil and gas wells predicted on BLM surface and 

federal mineral estate, potentially quadrupling the number of wells in the planning area, would cause air 

quality related impacts” (pg. 4-258). 

The document states that though this analysis is qualitative, “...In the near future, the BLM plans to 

analyze RMP cumulative far-field air quality impacts quantitatively with screening dispersion modeling. 

This would be part of a statewide analysis BLM refers to as the “State of the Atmosphere” study (pg. 4-

240 

Though Table 3.1 states that phased development strategies are included in Alternatives 3 and 4, it is 

unclear how these strategies work to reduce emissions and potential impacts since emission levels for 

these alternatives increase by 193% and 260% by 2021 respectively.

Response: BLM analyzed an appropriate range of alternatives in the draft EIS. Specific mitigations for 

air quality impacts due to the Jonah and Anticline developments are provided in the EIS and ROD for 

those fields. BLM is committed to supporting the State of the Atmosphere program (unfortunately we do 

not have results at the present time) and air quality monitoring. Further commitments will be in the ROD. 

At the present time, the BLM Casper Field Office is entering the implementation phase of the Casper 

RMP. Implementation for the Pinedale RMP could be similar. 

Comment: Air quality in southwestern Wyoming continues to be an important issue for oil and gas 

operators, the public, and regulatory agencies. Fortunately, according to the analysis in the RMP DEIS, 

air quality in southwest Wyoming is very good. See RMP DEIS, pg. 3-3 (“air quality in the planning area 

is considered very good”). Emissions data collected near Jonah Field demonstrate compliance with all 

National and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS/WAAQS"). See RMP DEIS, pgs. 3-3 - 

3-4, 3-8. Unfortunately, the BLM does not adequately explain this information.

Response: Current air quality information is given appropriate emphasis in the draft EIS.

Comment: The BLM suggests on page 4-6 that oil and gas exploration and development will have the 

greatest impact on air quality within the planning area. In fact, previous modeling performed by the State 

of Wyoming, EPA, and the Forest Service suggest that 90% of the air quality impact at the Bridger 

Wilderness area is attributable to distant sources outside of Wyoming, and not local sources within the 

Pinedale Resource Area. See The Southwest Wyoming Regional CALPUFF Air Quality Modeling Study: 

Final Report (SWWYTAF) (February 2001). Oil and gas development may contribute to emissions in the 

region, but the SWWYTAF study indicates that the overwhelming majority of sources impacting air 

quality in Wyoming, and particularly the Pinedale Resource Area, are outside of Wyoming. The statement 

on page 4-6 should be revised to reflect the information from the SWWYTAF study.

Response: The emission inventory was designed to focus on potential impacts from BLM activities.

Comment: The FS recommends the BLM analyze another alternative, looking at phased development, 

keeping emission levels at current levels or lower, by extending the timeframe for development. We 

believe that by slowing the pace of development and using the best available technology we can eliminate 

any air quality related impacts. The FS believes that significant impacts to air quality are avoidable. 

A27-84 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

The FS recommends the BLM use the “State of the Atmosphere” model now, to model far field impacts 

of the RMP alternatives. This will provide quantitative information and better disclosure of potential 

impacts for the public and the decision maker to base decisions regarding this RMP. 

The FS recommends that the BLM include in the final EIS a comprehensive discussion and description of 

how future monitoring and compliance examinations will occur. This should also include a commitment 

from the BLM to annually track and report existing, approved, and projected source emissions in the 

planning area.

Response: BLM analyzed an appropriate range of alternatives in the draft EIS. Specific mitigations for 

air quality impacts due to the Jonah and Anticline developments are provided in the EIS and ROD for 

those fields. BLM is committed to supporting the State of the Atmosphere program (unfortunately we do 

not have results at the present time) and air quality monitoring. Further commitments will be in the ROD. 

At the present time, the BLM Casper Field Office is entering the implementation phase of the Casper 

RMP. Implementation for the Pinedale RMP could be similar. 

Comment: EPA also recommends the Final EIS include the latest data and modeling of visibility impacts 

to the Class I Bridger Wilderness Area, the Fitzpatrick Wilderness and other neighboring sensitive areas. 

This information and discussion should be included in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, and in Chapter 

4, Environmental Consequences and Cumulative Impacts. Modeling conducted for the Pinedale Anticline 

SEIS predicted 45 days of visibility impairment over 1.0 dv at the Bridger Wilderness Area for 2005 

(Draft SETS Pinedale Anticline, Table 3.11-5, page 3-64). EPA notes that a similar table is included in 

the cumulative impacts section, however, this may be a more appropriate discussion for Chapter 3, 

Affected Environment, since the analysis is for 2005. The Final EIS should also include a discussion of 

visibility in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, and a discussion of how BLM will address and 

mitigate future visibility impacts. 

Response: The most recent data available from the IMPROVE website were used. BLM does not feel 

that it is possible to discuss mitigation for visibility beyond that identified in Appendix 19 of the draft 

EIS. However, please refer to the revised Pinedale Anticline supplemental EIS Section 4.9.3.5 and 

Appendix 11 for more details.

Comment: EPA also recommends the Final EIS incorporate the latest data and discussion on ozone 

monitoring and formation in the area. To EPA’s knowledge, the latest ozone analysis was completed in 

February, 2007 as supplemental information for the Pinedale Anticline Draft Supplemental EIS. This 

analysis became available following the release of the Pinedale RMP draft EIS. Elevated ozone levels 

have been recorded during the winter months at several ambient air monitoring stations in the area. The 

air quality modeling also predicted elevated levels of ozone in summer months. While the area remains in 

compliance with National and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS and WAAQS), this 

issue clearly demands close observation. EPA recommends the ozone discussion be expanded in Chapter 

3, Affected Environment, and included in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

Response: Air quality monitoring data were updated in the final EIS as they were available. The 

information regarding ozone has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: The second argument the BLM puts forth here is that, “The cumulative impacts for the energy 

projects do not distinguish between BLM and non-BLM sources.”6 Despite this rationale, cumulative air 

quality impacts do not distinguish between sources, whether BLM or otherwise. The human health and 

environmental impacts in a particular area are to be considered on the whole, regardless of the source. 

The BLM should be sensitive to this and should fully consider the impacts of any projects occurring on 

their land, together with any other air pollution sources.

Pinedale RMP A27-85 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

Response: The cumulative impacts from the Jonah EIS are included as an example. The summary of 

cumulative impacts from the Pinedale Anticline Supplemental EIS will be included in the Pinedale RMP 

final EIS in the form of a table. 

Comment: Lastly, the BLM argues that, “The energy project information is out of date (for example, the 

Jonah Infill does not take into account any projects authorized after 2003).”7 The BLM must update the 

information and use it to evaluate the impacts from the development that has already occurred in the area 

and must use the latest information available to predict future impacts from sources in the planning area. 

The previous EISs were supposed to have included all the planned oil and gas development for many 

years into the future, so, unless BLM grossly underestimated the number of wells it would allow on its 

land, this information must be used as part of the inputs for this analysis. It must be noted here that 

although the previous analyses for the Pinedale and Jonah EISs should be used in this draft EIS/RMP, 

they should be used only as a starting point for calculating air quality emissions and associated impacts 

because those analyses were flawed and likely underpredicted the impacts to the environment. For details 

on the flawed portions of the previous draft EISs, please see our March 26, 2007 comment letter 

concerning the Pinedale draft EIS and Vicki Stamper’s October 5, 2005 comment letter regarding the 

Jonah Infill draft EIS.

Response: The cumulative impacts from the Jonah EIS are included as an example. The summary of 

cumulative impacts from the Pinedale Anticline Supplemental EIS will be included in the Pinedale RMP 

final EIS in the form of a table.

Comment: Despite the importance of the PSD increments to the protection of air quality, Table A19- 9 in 

the AQTSD, which summarizes the existing conditions in regard to air quality does not even include PSD 

increment consumption information. This information must be provided here in order for the public to 

fully understand the current state of the environment.

Response: An RMP is not a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) increment consumption 

analysis.

Comment: Chapter 4 of this draft EIS/RMP states, “It would be inappropriate to infer planning area 

impacts directly from impacts estimated for the Pinedale Anticline or Jonah Infill projects...”4 and then 

provides three arguments explaining this difficulty. The first argument explains that, “The geographic 

extent of the project area is smaller for the energy projects than for the Pinedale RMP, although the 

energy project areas are subsets of the Pinedale planning area.”5 In fact, air pollution levels would only 

increase if a comprehensive modeling analysis were to be conducted for the entire Pinedale RMP area. If 

the Big Piney-La Barge oil and gas field were added to the analysis, then most of the relevant air pollution 

sources would be included. See Map 3-5 (showing locations of major oil and gas fields), and page 3-40 

(Big Piney-La Barge field currently has more than 1500 wells). The predicted impacts from the Pinedale 

Anticline and Jonah Infill development projects must be acknowledged and assessed in this Draft 

EIS/RMP. We can only assume that a comprehensive look at the impacts from all sources affecting the 

planning area would result in impacts that are at least as significant, and likely more so, than the those 

already predicted from the individual energy development projects. So, for example, the BLM must 

address the visibility impacts, PSD increment violations and near-violations of NAAQS in the area that 

were predicted in the BLM’s analyses for the 2 BLM, Pinedale Field Office, Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Pinedale Resource Management Plan, “Appendix 10-Surface Disturbance Associated 

with Oil and Gas Activities,” February 2007, 1. 3 BLM, “Land Use Planning Handbook,” H-1601-1, 

March 11, 2005, 22. 4 BLM, Draft EIS/RMP, 4-239. 5 BLM, Draft EIS/RMP, 4-240. Pinedale Anticline 

and Jonah Infill projects and the BLM must provide adequate mitigation measures to address these 

impacts in this Draft EIS/RMP.

A27-86 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

Response: The cumulative impacts from the Jonah EIS are included as an example. The summary of 

cumulative impacts from the Pinedale Anticline Supplemental EIS will be included in the Pinedale RMP 

final EIS in the form of a table.

Comment: The BLM has in fact completed modeling analyses for other draft RMPs, including the 

Farmington, New Mexico,8 Vernal, Utah and Roan Plateau, Colorado resource management plans. While 

there were flaws in the content of these analyses, the fact that air quality modeling was performed sets a 

precedent for the inclusion of quantitative analyses in RMPs. And since the BLM went so far as to 

quantify, in detail, the emissions from oil and gas development in the planning area, is seems clear that a 

quantitative modeling analysis is achievable and therefore must be completed as part of this RMP.

Response: The determination of whether quantitative modeling is conducted for an RMP is decided on a 

case-by-case basis. Policy and guidance on this issue are being discussed at the present time. 

Comment: Item: Page A19-4, Calculation of Total Deposition Comment: The following calculations are 

confusing and need clarification. It is recommended that they be deleted and instead the RMP document 

should state that total deposition (wet and dry) should be determined through accurate photochemical 

modeling and the modeling results should be compared to accepted levels of concern. 

• “Calculation of Total Deposition: Total N deposition = N/NO3 dry + N/NH4 dry + N/HNO3 dry 

+ N/NO3 wet + N/NH4 wet 

• Where: • N/NO3 dry = NO3 * (7/31) • N/NH4 dry = NH4 * (7/11) • N/HNO3 dry = HNO3 * 

(7/32) • N/NO3 wet = NO3 * (7/31) • N/NH4 wet = NH4 * (7/11) Total S deposition = S/SO2 dry 

+ S/SO4 dry + S/SO4 wet 

• Where: • S/SO2 dry = SO2 * (16/32) • S/SO4 dry = SO4 * (16/48) • S/SO4 wet = SO4 * (16/48)” 

Response: This will be updated in the final EIS.

Comment: Item: Page A19-5, Discussion of PSD Class I Areas “• PSD Class I Areas: Areas with pristine 

air quality, such as wilderness areas, national parks, and some Indian reservations, are accorded the 

strictest protection. Only very small incremental increases in concentration are allowed in order to 

maintain the very clean air quality in these areas.” Comment: The discussion of PSD Class I Areas in the 

above paragraph needs to be modified as suggested below: “• PSD Class I Areas: Congressional 

mandated PSD Class I Areas with pristine air quality, such as wilderness areas, national parks, and some 

Indian reservations, are accorded the strictest protection. Only very small incremental increases in 

concentration are allowed in order to maintain the air quality in these areas.” Item: Page A19-5, Table 

A19-2 Comment: “Table A19-2 PSD Increments” should only reference concentrations in ug/m3 and not 

present concentrations in ppm or ppb. Concentrations in ug/m3 are the regulatory form of these standards. 

Item: Page A19-5, PSD Increment Comment: BP supports the position that BLM has taken regarding 

conducting PSD increment analyses in RMP’s or EIS’s. Item: Page A19-7, Preconstruction permitting 

applicability “Air pollution impacts are limited by local, state, tribal, and federal air quality regulations, 

standards, and implementation plans established under the CAA and administered by the WDEQ-AQD 

with oversight from the EPA. Air quality regulations require proposed new, or modified existing, air 

pollutant emission stationary sources (including oil and gas compression facilities) to undergo a 

permitting review before their construction can begin. Therefore, the WDEQ-AQD has the primary 

authority and responsibility to review permit applications and to require emission permits, fees, and 

control devices, before construction and/or operation.” Comment: Preconstruction permitting is not 

limited to compressor facilities but rather all oil and gas facilities. It is also important to note that 

Wyoming requires the application of emission controls as part of the permitting process. It is 

recommended that the paragraph be changed as suggested in the following: 

Pinedale RMP A27-87 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

APPLICABILITY TO THE PINEDALE AREA: Air pollution impacts are limited by local, state, tribal, 

and federal air quality regulations, standards, and implementation plans established under the CAA and 

administered by the WDEQ-AQD with oversight from the EPA. Air quality regulations require proposed 

new, or modified existing, air pollutant emission stationary sources (including oil and gas facilities) to 

undergo a permitting review before their construction can begin. Therefore, the WDEQ-AQD has the 

primary authority and responsibility to review permit applications and to require emission permits, fees, 

and control devices, before construction and/or operation. It is important to note that part of this 

preconstruction permitting is the application of Wyoming minor source Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT). 

 Item: Page A19-9, Table A19-3 Comment: The reference to PSD increments in Table A19-3 should be 

deleted. Background monitoring data has no correlation to PSD increments. PSD increments cannot be 

measured, and compliance can only be determined through modeling. In addition, the table should note 

the ranking of the referenced ambient concentrations. The percent of the standard should also be 

consistent with the ranking of the monitored data. Also, there are duplicate entries in the table. “Table 

A19-3. Assumed Background Concentrations, Applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards (in ug/m3)” 

Item: Page A19-14, Visibility Levels of Concern ”It should be noted that a 1.0-dv change is not a “just 

noticeable change” in all cases for all scenes. Visibility changes of less than 1.0 dv are likely to be 

perceptible in some cases, especially when the scene being viewed is highly sensitive to small amounts of 

pollution, such as that caused by preferential forward light scattering.” Comment: BP has previously 

submitted extensive comments on levels of concern for visibility impairment as well as assumptions that 

are integral to the specified levels of concern , . There is considerable speculation whether a 1 dv change 

will produce an actual noticeable change in visibility. The suggestion that less than a 1 dv change could 

result in a noticeable change in visibility is not supported and to date, there is no peer reviewed scientific 

information to support this claim. It is recommended that this reference (quoted above) be eliminated.

Response: The best available data were used in preparing the draft EIS and final EIS. The emission 

inventory was designed to focus on potential impacts from BLM activities. Detailed information on 

sources, emissions inventory, etc., were included in the final EIS as they were available. BLM considers 

the use of the units ppm and/or ppb appropriate in considering and comparing source concentrations 

across a large area. Table A19-3 of the draft EIS has been updated in the final EIS. Page A19-14 of the 

draft EIS has been updated in the final EIS. 

Comment: Item: Page A19-15, Estimation of Emission Factors “Estimation of Emission Factors For 

natural gas compressor engines, the emissions of nitrogen oxides, CO, and formaldehyde are determined 

by the average ( emphasis added ) permitted emission rate allowed by the state under BACT processes” 

Comment: The RMP document, as well as the associated spreadsheets, needs to contain detailed 

information on how emissions were calculated. The suggested use of average emission based on the 

minor source WYDEQ BACT program adds conservatism to the emission growth calculation. Since 

BACT is a technology forcing regulation, it is more appropriate to base growth emissions on the most 

stringent emission limits rather than the average. Again, emission growth estimates need to be consistent 

with ongoing EISs and such information must be included in the RMP. 

Item: Page A19-27 Table A 19-10 Comment: Table A 19-10 should be deleted because a summation of 

pollutant totals is meaningless from a technical perspective. 

Item: Page A19-29, Compilation of Emission Inventories “It is expected that these data will someday be 

integrated with the BLM emissions data to depict all emissions in the planning area and can be used for 

cumulative analysis. Also, this information will be needed if air dispersion modeling is performed in the 

area.” Comment: We suggest that WDEQ rather than BLM should be responsible for compiling emission 

A27-88 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

inventories for existing and future emissions. In addition, WDEQ should be responsible if modeling is 

conducted.

Response: It is BLM practice to estimate emissions using assumptions that are reasonable but 

conservative or most likely. Although we understand the concern about total emissions, we feel that the 

presentation of the total emissions is appropriate and gives a general comparison of emissions for each 

alternative for each year. In fact, the total emissions approach has been used before in the Wyoming 

Climate Atlas (Curtis and Grimes http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/wrds/wsc/climateatlas/quality.html). 

However, BLM has addressed this concern in the final EIS by breaking down each pollutant’s 

contribution to the total values in both Table A19-11 and Figure 4-1 of the draft EIS. 

Comment: Table 1 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Estimates for ICE Control Techniques and 

Technologies Engine Type: Lean Burn. Control Comparison: From Low-Emission Combustion to SCR 

(96%) Horsepower 50-150 0.4 58,900 Incremental NOX Combustion to SCR 150-300 0.8 3,500 (96%) 

300-500 3.3 8,800 500-1000 6.6 10,300. 

There are several concerns regarding this information. First, it is not known if the emission reductions are 

based on actual performance tests or theoretical emission calculations. It is also not known what the 

reference basis is for the emission reduction of 6.6 tons per year of NOx . 

What is important is that it is purely speculative and unlikely that this technology could achieve an 

emission rate of 0.1 g/hp-hr on a continuous basis. In addition, this technology is very expensive and EPA 

has rejected it in the proposed NSPS for engines. BLM states that the installation of this technology 

would reduce visibility impairment. This statement is without foundation and is based on the assumption 

of visibility impairment in the Bridger Class I Area using solely the CALPUFF model. BP has previously 

submitted extensive comments to BLM that the recent BLM CALPUFF modeling does not reflect actual 

IMPROVE measurements at Bridger. Those measurements indicate that there has been no change in 

visibility at Bridger even though there has been growth in emissions. In addition, there has been no 

change in NO3 levels at the Class I Area 

2) Installation of Electric Compression 

In evaluating the changes in emissions for shifting from natural gas to electric (coal) powered 

compression, it is necessary to examine the emissions for each power source on an equivalent energy 

basis. Thus, for the same amount of energy consumption, the change in emissions from natural gas versus 

electricity must be considered. 

An analysis of shifting from natural gas fired compressors to electric was conducted for the Four Corners 

Area. Table 2 presents a summary of emissions from PNM, Xcel and Tri-State generation stations in the 

4-Corners Region. This mix of facilities is assumed to reflect the “grid” average for the 4-Corners Region. 

Response: Data were provided by EPA (AP-42) and WDEQ. Assumptions are given in the document and 

inventory spreadsheet.

Comment: Table 2. Summary of Emissions from Coal-Fired Generating Plants in 4-Corners Area 

Generation (MWhs) Emissions in Tons Emission Rates (lbs/MWh) 

Owner All Sources Fossil Fuel Plants Coal Plants 

• Total Fossil Fuel Coal SO2 NOx CO2 Hg SO2 NOx CO2 SO2 NOx CO2 SO2 NOx CO2 Hg 

Pinedale RMP A27-89 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

• PNM Resources 10,301,726 7,434,239 7,235,445 9,504 16,581 7,684,272 0.21 1.8 3.2 1,492 2.6 

4.5 2,067 2.6 4.5 2,088 0.06 

• Tri-State 10,928,949 10,927,196 10,858,096 8,194 19,446 12,485,729 0.13 1.5 3.6 2,285 1.5 3.6 

2,285 1.5 3.6 2,297 0.02 

• Xcel 81,283,493 66,604,435 54,673,970 157,324 124,237 69,809,043 1.09 3.9 3.1 1,718 4.7 3.7 

2,096 5.7 4.3 2,320 0.04 

• Total or Average 102,514,168 84,965,870 72,767,511 175,022 160,264 89,979,044 1 3.41 3.13 

1,755 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

In this analysis, it was assumed that for visibility SO2 and NOx emissions are equivalent in terms of 

impacts because they cause approximately the same amount of visibility impairment. This is because the 

dry scattering coefficients for converting SO4 and NO3 concentrations into visual range are 

approximately equivalent. 

As a first order approximation, 1 ton per year of SO2 emissions will result in the same amount of 

potential visibility impairment as 1 ton per year of NOx. In reality, because of the more complex and 

competitive reactions involving both SO4 and NO3, SO2 emissions may result in more visibility 

impairment than NOx emissions. 

From an economic basis, conversion of natural gas-fired engines to electric compression is only practical 

for large engines and only in areas where electricity is already available within close proximity. This is 

because most locations do not currently have electrical power and it would not be cost effective to install 

power for small engines. 

The energy consumption of a typical lean burn engine was calculated, converted into pounds per mega 

watt-hour and was compared to SO2 and NOx emissions from existing coal-fired power plants (Table 3). 

This was done assuming an emission factor between 1 g/hp-hr and 5 g/hp-hr. It was then assumed that the 

computed emissions per mega watt of power represented emissions for 1-hour and were converted into 

tons per year by multiplying by 8760 hours per year and dividing by 2000 pounds per ton. 

As indicated in Table 3, a shift from natural gas to electric (coal) for an engine of 1 MWhr capacity 

(approximately 1,342) hp with an emission factor of 1 g/hp-hr would result in an increase of 117 tons per 

year of SO2 + NOx. With engine emissions of approximately 2.5 g/hp-hr there is no net change in overall 

emissions by shifting from natural gas to electric. For all cases, the shift from natural gas to electricity 

results in higher greenhouse gas emissions. 

Table 3. Change in SO2, NOx and Greenhouse Gas Emissions by shifting from Natural Gas Compression 

to Electricity 

4 Corners Grid Average Emissions: 

• lbs/MWh tons/MWh/yr 

• SO2 3.41 14.9 

• NOx 3.13 13.7 

• NOx + SO2 6.54 28.6 

• CO2 1,755 7686.9 

• Caterpillar 3608 LE Average Emissions: 

• lbs/MWh (equivalent) Other NOx Emission Rates (gr/hp-hr) 

• SO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 

A27-90 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

• hp/kw-hr 1.342 1.342 1.342 1.342 1.342 1.342 

• hp/mw-hr 1,342 1,342 1,342 1,342 1,342 1,342 

• Cubic feet gas/mw-hr 9,815 9,815 9,815 9,815 9,815 9,815 

• Caterpillar 3608 LE Average Emissions: 

• lbs/MWh (equivalent) Other NOx Emission Rates (gr/hp-hr) 

• NOx Emission Rate gr/hp-hr 1 2 3 4 5 16 

• SO2 lbs/mw-hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 

• NOx lbs/mw-hr 3.0 5.9 8.9 11.8 14.8 47.3 

• CO2 lbs/mw-hr 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138 

• SO2 tons/MWh/yr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

• NOx tons/MWh/yr 13.0 25.9 38.9 51.8 64.8 207.4 

• CO2 tons/MWh/yr 4985 4985 4985 4985 4985 4985 

• Delta SO2 tons/Mwh/yr 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 

• Delta NOx tons/Mwh/yr 0.7 -12.2 -25.2 -38.1 -51.1 -193.7 

• Delta NOx +SO2 tons/MWh/yr 15.7 2.7 -10.2 -23.2 -36.2 -178.7 

• Delta CO2 tons/Mwh/yr 2702 2702 2702 2702 2702 2702 

• Delta SO2 tons/yr 15 15 15 15 15 15 

• Delta NOx tons/yr -83 -180 -276 -373 -469 -1,533 

• Delta NOx +SO2 tons/yr 117 20 -76 -173 -270 -1,333 

• Delta CO2 tons/yr 20,149 20,149 20,149 20,149 20,149 20,149 

• Cat. 3608 Assumptions: 

• 9815 Btu/kw-hr 

• “Sweet” Natural Gas 

• NOx - 1 gr/hp-hr 

• 1 cu ft gas = 1,000 btu 

• 2285 hp 

While this example was for the Four Corners Area and not Wyoming, it does demonstrate that shifting 

from natural gas to electricity does not guarantee a reduction in emissions and based on previous 

comments regarding visibility impairment may not result in any change in visibility in the Class I Area 

3) Activated Carbon on Condensate Storage Tanks 

The suggestion of using activated carbon as a control measure for condensate storage is not a viable 

mitigation option because there are considerable safety concerns using this control technology. Since 

condensate storage tanks operate at a maximum of 0.5 ounces of pressure, any plugging of the carbon 

canister could result in over pressuring the tank and result in a catastrophic failure. In addition, because of 

the high volume flow such controls may require frequent regeneration and maintenance. Rather, use of a 

combustion chamber will result in lower emissions, less maintenance and safety concerns and a lower 

cost than activated carbon. 

Response: BLM does not understand what D. Brown is referring to. There is no Table 2 in the document 

for emissions from power plants. BLM requests clarification in this regard.

Comment: Air quality in southwestern Wyoming continues to be an important issue for oil and gas 

operators, the public, and regulatory agencies. Fortunately, according to the analysis in the RMP DEIS, 

air quality in southwest Wyoming is very good. See RMP DEIS, pg. 3-3 (“air quality in the planning area 

is considered very good”). Emissions data collected near Jonah Field demonstrate compliance with all 

National and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS/WAAQS”). See RMP DEIS, pgs. 3-3 -

- 3-4, 3-8. Unfortunately, the BLM does not adequately explain this information.

Pinedale RMP A27-91 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

Response: BLM believes that air quality has been adequately characterized in this document.

Comment: The BLM suggests on page 4-6 that oil and gas exploration and development will have the 

greatest impact on air quality within the planning area. In fact, previous modeling performed by the State 

of Wyoming, EPA, and the Forest Service suggest that 90% of the air quality impact at. the Bridger 

Wilderness area: is attributable to distant sources outside of Wyoming, and not local sources within the 

Pinedale Resource Area. See The Southwest Wyoming Regional CALPUFF Air Quality Modeling Study: 

Final. Report (SWWYTAF) (February 2001). Oil and gas development may contribute to emissions in the 

region, but the SWWYTAF study indicates that the. overwhelming majority of sources impacting air 

quality in Wyoming, and particularly the Pinedale Resource Area, are outside of Wyoming. The statement 

on page 4-6 should be revised to reflect the information from the SWWYTAF study. 

As discussed in more detail below, the RFD Scenarios for each of the alternatives used to qualitatively 

analyze potential air quality impacts in Appendix A19 conflict with the RFD Scenarios expressed in 

Table 4-2, page 4-48, and Appendix A10. In each case, the RFD Scenarios utilized in the BLM’s air 

analysis are higher than the scenarios in Table 4-2 and Appendix A10. For example, the air quality RFD 

Scenario anticipates 6,456 wells under Alternative 3, while the RFD Scenario for Alternative 3 in Table 

4-2 and Appendix A10 is only 5,924 wells. The BLM must explain and correct this inconsistency.)

Response: BLM does not believe that this is inconsistent.

Comment: PAGE: 2-113 SECTION: 2.5.5 Air Quality RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add the following 

to Actions: Roads that provide access to more than 3 wells will be treated with magnesium chloride or 

paved; roads that serve more than 50 wells will be paved. EXPLANATION: The local governments agree 

with the objective of reducing particulate pollution but none of the actions listed supports that goal. Dust 

in the area is a serious issue both in terms of community health and aesthetics. While dust theoretically 

dissipates and levels may reach acceptable WY NAAQ levels with 24 hour and monthly time periods, 

they still represent a significant deterioration in air quality. BLM needs to address the fact directly by 

reducing dust levels in the oil fields by paving the dirt roads. 

Response: BLM does not have the regulatory authority to force this kind of mitigation. BLM will 

continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality from the proposed 

project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern.

Comment: Appendix 19 discusses production of NOx and SO2 air pollutants that can cause acid 

deposition in surface waters downwind from the PRA. However, it merely “describes the processes used 

to conduct the air quality impact assessment.” It does not include any proposed management direction to 

avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to water quality from air pollution deposition. Nor does this 

Technical Support Document evaluate impacts associated with deposition of air pollutants into surface 

waters. Appendix 19 (page A19-11) does show SO2 emissions reached or exceeded National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards over 3-hour intervals, but no attempt was made to correlate emissions of that pollutant 

or other depositional pollutants that are produced by NOx and SO2 emissions (e.g., nitric acid, nitrate, 

ammonium). Even if these pollutants do not exceed NAAQS limits, they can still adversely impact 

surface waters and aquatic communities. The BLM must adopt strong management direction to address 

this problem.

Response: Levels of concern (LOCs) of deposition do exist for high elevation lakes in the Bridger 

Wilderness (3 kg/ha/yr for N and 5 kg/ha/yr for S). These LOCs are monitored regularly. BLM will 

continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality from the proposed 

project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. Appendix 19 of the draft EIS will 

be updated in the final EIS.

A27-92 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

Comment: PAGE: 4-6, SECTION: 4.2.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE; REVISE Several of the 

resource areas listed below (air quality monitoring, cultural management, paleontology, special 

management areas [SMA], livestock grazing, wild horses, wildlife and fish, socioeconomics) would have 

minimal impacts on air quality (refer to Figure 4-1 and Tables A19-6, A19-7, and A19-8 in Appendix 19). 

EXPLANATION: If wildlife with hunting and vegetation management has minimal impacts on air quality 

then so does livestock grazing. The related activities, such as vehicle trips, are very similar.

Response: It is BLM’s practice to estimate emissions using assumptions that are reasonable but 

conservative or most likely. The tables will be updated in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 4-6 TO 4-7, SECTION: 4.2.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: 4-7 Revise Section 

Entirely to Distinguish between point source pollution and nonpoint sources. This section mixes the two, 

omits other equally significant sources of dust and emissions, such as short term air quality impacts for 

wildlife habitat management and recreation use, such as hunting or fishing. EXPLANATION: The FEIS 

needs to treat wildlife habitat management equally with logging, and construction and vehicular travel 

associated with livestock grazing. The limited travel with livestock grazing is similar to WGFD 

management and enforcement and less than recreation use for hunting and fishing. WGFD travel 

throughout the planning area to monitor management, and enforce fish and game laws. This section 

would be more accurate and less biased, if it followed the distinctions between nonpoint and point sources 

of air pollution. DEIS mixes activities regulated as a new source, with activities regulated under ambient 

air quality rules. The latter are not considered sources but rather contributors. Moreover, the section treats 

the impacts between vehicular use for livestock grazing as equally significant to fire emissions, when they 

are not.

Response: It is BLM’s practice to estimate emissions using assumptions that are reasonable but 

conservative or most likely. The emission inventory was designed to focus on potential impacts from 

BLM activities. 

Pinedale Area Air Quality 

Comment: The air quality in the Denver-Julesburg basin, near here has recently undergone a dramatic 

decline because of accelerated existing gas production, as has a significant portion of the Green River 

plateau/valley area. Research documents a significant decline in the both mule deer herds and sage grouse 

populations that winter in the Upper Green. The predicted increase in new gas production over the next 

10-15 years denies America’s responsibility for the stewardship of our land.

Response: BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality 

from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. While ambient 

air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, monitored data at the 

present time are inconclusive.

Comment: The air over the Upper Green has already been visibly affected by industrial pollution from 

existing gas rigs. Researchers have noticed significant declines in the mule deer herds and sage grouse 

populations that winter in the Upper Green. Tripling the number of gas wells over the next 10-15 years 

would simply make the problems worse. 

Response: BLM will continue to comply with all air quality laws, rules, and regulations. While ambient 

air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, monitored data at the 

present time are inconclusive.

It is important to note that current concentrations of criteria pollutants are in compliance with the 

WAAQS and NAAQS (with the exception of ozone). Therefore an increase in the concentration of a 

Pinedale RMP A27-93 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

particular pollutant is not necessarily a significant impact. Provided that concentrations remain in 

compliance with the standards, significant impacts would not occur.

Comment: It would be a travesty if the BLM allows the air quality to continue to deteriorate in and 

around the Pinedale area. What will it take - smog over Yellowstone perhaps? - to moderate drilling or 

impose emissions standards on the drilling in Sublette County? There are already published studies 

documenting the deteriorating air quality in the region. Again - if the BLM is not going to be concerned 

and take a stand for the air quality in the region who will? It is the BLM’s job to safe-guard and protect 

our public lands and natural resources. 

Response: WDEQ has the regulatory responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in 

Wyoming. BLM has the land management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, 

such as significance criteria and levels of concern. BLM will continue to support air quality monitoring 

and analysis. While ambient air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be 

worsening, monitored data at the present time are inconclusive.

Comment: The air quality of the region must be protected, as there has already been a significant 

decrease in air quality over the past few years. (Snow mobiles in the USNPS lands is another issue!) In 

order to sufficiently protect the air quality of the Upper Green River Valley, the resource management 

plan should mandate air emission controls and establish a stringent emissions cap. It should also eliminate 

loopholes to waive surface protections, and strictly define management objectives and monitoring and 

mitigation measures.

Response: WDEQ has the regulatory responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in 

Wyoming. BLM has the land management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, 

such as significance criteria and levels of concern. BLM will continue to support air quality monitoring 

and analysis. BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality 

from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. While ambient 

air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, monitored data at the 

present time are inconclusive. 

Comment: If drilling is so safe, ask yourself why the signs by the gas rigs on the Jonah field and 

Anticline say, “Warning Benzine, Cancer Hazard. Respirator Required”. This is the air we are breathing. I 

invite you all to come to the Rim and see the brown sunrise as I look towards Pinedale. 

Response: BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality 

from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration regulations will apply to all drilling operations.While ambient air 

quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, monitored data at the 

present time are inconclusive. 

Comment: Of the nine wilderness regions and two national parks that lie within the area of, or are in 

danger of effects from, the gas development (Upper Green and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem), seven 

are designated Class 1 Air Sheds under the Federal Clean Air Act. The areas could be affected by 

prevailing winds at different times of the year. Most importantly, the summer months when drilling 

activity is highest is also the period when winds travel most often toward the Wind River Class 1 Air 

Shed and the other Class 1 regions further north. Already local residents of and visitors to the Upper 

Green River Valley have noticed a particulate haze or smoke-like air conditions at certain times, directly 

attributable to the huge uptick in drilling activities seen in the past few years in the region. Moreover, we 

read in an environmental publication not too many months ago that residents of both Dakotas have 

A27-94 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

observed air pollution that had not previously been present, believed to be the result of certain patterns of 

winds carrying pollution from the rapidly-expanding oil and gas development in western Wyoming.

Response: BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality 

from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. While ambient 

air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, monitored data at the 

present time are inconclusive.

Comment: I would also ask that the BLM reconsider their monitoring and enforcement of the air and 

water quality. These standards have not even been a part of the BLM management strategy yet the air and 

water quality of Sublette county has undeniably declined with the ever-increasing free emissions of 

carbon dioxide and methane gases.

Response: WDEQ has the regulatory responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in 

Wyoming. BLM has the land management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, 

such as significance criteria and levels of concern. BLM will continue to support air quality monitoring 

and analysis. While ambient air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be 

worsening, monitored data at the present time are inconclusive. 

Comment: Air quality in Sublette County has been degraded, largely by mineral development. The BLM 

has not accepted responsibility for halting this problem. Nor is anyone else halted this problem. What is 

your solution? This has had an especially adverse effect on visibility and water quality in the lakes in the 

Bridger Wilderness,

Response: WDEQ has the regulatory responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in 

Wyoming. BLM has the land management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, 

such as significance criteria and levels of concern. BLM will continue to support air quality monitoring 

and analysis. While ambient air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be 

worsening, monitored data at the present time are inconclusive. 

Comment: As the largest community in Sublette County, the Town remains concerned about further 

degradation to our air quality. If the RMP does not provide for stringent air quality protections (which the 

draft EIS doesn’t), and our county’s air quality is found in violation of the Clean Air Act, it could affect 

other development (non-energy type of development) in the town. We understand from air quality experts 

that the county is very close to exceeding NAAQS for Ozone. If Sublette County is declared in nonattainment for Ozone, it could restrict our ability to grow through development activities and provide 

services to our residents. Because air quality has a direct affect on public health, we ask that the BLM 

meet all the analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy 

Management Act. 

We ask also that the BLM acknowledge and address the already existing and predicted air pollution 

impacts in the Pinedale RMP area. The BLM also must analyze the cumulative affects of RMP 

development in our area. The BLM also should make plans to protect and restore air quality degradation 

that has already occurred.

Response: WDEQ has the regulatory responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in 

Wyoming. BLM has the land management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, 

such as significance criteria and levels of concern. BLM will continue to support air quality monitoring 

and analysis. 

Pinedale RMP A27-95 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

BLM recognizes that ozone concentrations are a serious concern. WDEQ-Air Quality Division (AQD) is 

currently conducting a monitoring and modeling study of ozone in the Green River Basin. NOx and 

volatile organic compound (VOC) mitigation measures applied to reduce visibility impacts may also 

help reduce ozone concentrations. BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential 

impacts to air quality from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of 

concern. 

Comment: Regional Haze: The Pinedale DSEIS showed extensive, existing visibility impairment as well 

as predicted visibility problems due to the planned development in the area, both of which were largely 

ignored in the document. Under current plans, the visibility degradation that has already taken place, 

especially in the Bridger Wilderness Area, will not be reversed. Despite flawed emission inventories that 

likely underpredicted impacts, the Jonah and Pinedale EISs both predicted additional visibility impacts 

under most of the development scenarios but these EISs failed to present any type of enforceable plan that 

would reverse these trends. Please see our March 26, 2007 comments on the draft Pinedale SEIS for a 

detailed review of the current and predicted visibility problems in the area. This Draft EIS/RMP should 

not follow that same pattern by continuing to ignore the troubling visibility problems that are already 

occurring in the Class I and II areas in Wyoming. Under the section heading “Air Quality Impact 

Assessment” of the Air Quality TSD, the BLM explains the use of a 1.0 deciview (dv) change in visibility 

analyses. Although mention was made that perceptible changes in visibility could occur at levels lower 

than 1.0 dv, we would like to reiterate past comments to the BLM on the importance of the 0.5 dv 

threshold for determining visibility impairment. The BLM has used a change of 1.0 dv to denote visibility 

impairment in EIS documents (see the Jonah Infill and Pinedale EISs), a threshold of 0.5 dv is much more 

protective of visibility in Class I areas. The Clean Air Act and subsequent EPA regulations also point to 

the importance of a 0.5 dv threshold. “Visibility impairment” is defined by the Clean Air Act as a 

reduction in visual range and atmospheric discoloration.15 Under the regional haze regulations states are 

required to consider a change of 0.5 dv for determining Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

eligibility for stationary sources.16 Furthermore, the BART rulemaking stated that “changes in light 

extinction of 5% will evoke a just noticeable change in most landscapes.”17 Please see our March 26, 

2007 comments on the Pinedale Anticline DSEIS for more detailed comments on this issue.

Response: Comparisons of potential visibility impacts are included in both the Jonah EIS and the 

Pinedale Anticline Supplemental EIS. Please refer to these documents. It is BLM practice to estimate 

emissions using assumptions that are reasonable but conservative or most likely. BLM will continue to 

require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality from the proposed project are 

below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern.

Legal Compliance 

Comment: It is clear to me that they should not be pushing this process forward without first 

demonstrating that the development to date has been in compliance with federal law. Table 4-18 in the 

Cumulative Impacts section is particularly damning. It says that that the area currently exceeds particulate 

and nitrogen dioxide limits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air permit. That is 

federal law and they must meet it - not optional. Bottom line - if the area doesn’t meet the air quality 

standard today and they are still infilling down at Jonah then why should they be allow to even talk about 

future development? 

Response: WDEQ has the regulatory responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in 

Wyoming. BLM has the land management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, 

such as significance criteria and levels of concern. BLM will continue to support air quality monitoring 

and analysis. BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality 

from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern.

A27-96 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

Comment: With respect to potential visibility impacts, the BLM’s authority is particularly limited. Under 

the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), a federal land manager, like the BLM, has only minimal authority to consider 

whether a “proposed major emitting facility will have an adverse impact” on visibility within designated 

Class I areas. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(d)(2)(B) (2006). Oil and gas fields are not major emitting facilities as 

defined by the CAA and therefore do not trigger the BLM’s limited authority. See 42 U.S.C. § 7479(1); 

40 C.F.R. §§ 51.166(b)(1), 52.21(b)(1) (2006). Under the CAA, the regulation of potential impacts to 

visibility, and authority over air quality in general, rests with the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality (“WDEQ”). 42 U.S.C. § 7407(a) (2006). The goal of preventing impairment of visibility in Class 

I areas will be achieved through the regional haze state implementation plans (“SIPs”) that are being 

developed under regulations issued by the EPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(J) (2006). Although federal 

land managers with jurisdiction over Class I areas may participate in the development of regional haze 

SIPs, the BLM has no such jurisdiction in Wyoming because it does not have management authority over 

Class I areas. See 42 U.S.C. § 7491 (2006). Accordingly, the BLM has no authority over air quality or 

visibility, and cannot directly or indirectly impose emissions restrictions on natural gas operations in 

southwest Wyoming, particularly with the intent to reduce potential visibility impacts. 

Given these limitations, the BLM must revise its air quality management objectives in Section 2.3.1 and 

must eliminate or substantially review its air quality management goals and objectives under Alternatives 

2, 3, and 4. One of the BLM’s proposed Management Goals under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, is to 

“minimize the impact of management actions in the planning area on air quality by complying with all 

applicable air quality laws, rules, and regulations. Implement management actions in the planning area to 

improve air quality as practicable.” See RMP DEIS, pgs. 2-50, 2-75 - 76, 2-113 - 114. Because the BLM 

cannot regulate air emissions, this goal is inappropriate and potentially illegal. The BLM cannot attempt 

to impose air emission regulations through its normal management responsibilities. Further, even 

assuming the Management Goal is within the BLM’s authority, the Management Goal is poorly worded 

and could lead to increased litigation. Opponents to natural gas development could, and likely would, 

suggest the Management Goal precludes the BLM from authorizing any actions that may lead to 

increased emissions within the planning area. Opponents to natural gas development have relied on 

similar language in the Pinedale RMP and Buffalo RMP to suggest that BLM has an affirmative duty to 

protect air quality and therefore is entitled to regulate emissions from oil and gas projects. The BLM must 

revise its Management Goal under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The BLM should include clear language in the 

RMP disavowing any attempt to regulate air emissions or air quality in the planning area.

Response: BLM has made it clear that WDEQ has regulatory authority. It is reasonable for BLM to 

coordinate with WDEQ, a cooperating agency in this RMP effort, to align BLM management goals with 

WDEQ monitoring and enforcement responsibilities.

Comment: In many cases the data do not reflect observed shifts in air quality. The lack of measurable 

data that permeates the Draft EIS apparently stems from an inability to measure quantitatively. The BLM 

opted to use a qualitative emission approach as opposed to a quantitative approach regarding impacts on 

air quality, with several reasons: “(1) sufficient specific data were not available on future projects, (2) 

there was limited time available to complete the analysis, (3) quantitative analysis will be required as 

development projects are defined in the future, and (4) WDEQ-AQD will require demonstration of 

compliance with federal and state air quality regulations and standards for any future development 

projects” (DEIS A19-29). In order to comply with the Clean Air Act, however, the BLM must conduct a 

quantitative analysis of the air quality impacts. FLPMA requires that quantitative impacts be incorporated 

into the RMP, requiring that, “In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall... 

provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, 

noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans...” (43 U.S.C. §1712(c)(8)). It would appear 

that, without doing the necessary quantitative air quality analysis, the BLM is out of compliance with 

both FLPMA and the Clean Air Act.

Pinedale RMP A27-97 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

Response: The RMP will not authorize any on-the-ground activity. Site-specific NEPA analysis of 

development projects such as the Jonah and Anticline gas fields provide specific air quality and emission 

analyses. NEPA does not require a quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, 

EPA, USFS, NPS, and BLM) worked collaboratively with BLM on the analysis methodology. While 

ambient air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, monitored data 

at the present time are inconclusive. 

Comment: There are means to prevent such air degradation and pollution and cost should not be a 

problem since the companies involved in the development and production of the gas and oil are making a 

ton of money. And it now appears that information indicates further deterioration of air quality will occur 

if the Jonah Infill Expansion Project is approved. There will be such bad air that the public will be 

excluded because of health threats. How can this be when there are laws on the books to prevent this kind 

of degradation? The BLM may not be responsible for air quality regulation but it certainly controls the 

extent and pacing of development which leads to the serious deterioration of air quality.

Response: WDEQ has the regulatory responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in 

Wyoming. BLM has the land management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, 

such as significance criteria and levels of concern. BLM will continue to support air quality monitoring 

and analysis. BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality 

from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. While ambient 

air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, monitored data at the 

present time are inconclusive.

Comment: During development of the RMP, the DEQ Air Quality Division (AQD) agreed with BLM 

that quantifying emissions and qualitatively addressing potential air quality impacts was appropriate to 

provide the basis for alternative comparison within the RMP, so long as quantitative air quality impact 

analyses would be performed at the project level prior to project approval. Since that time, it has become 

evident that project-specific air quality impact analyses would be eliminated if oil and gas wells are 

authorized through Categorical Exclusion 3 under Section 390 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act upon 

approval of the RMP. 

The AQD finds that the RMP air quality analysis is not specific enough in the absence of quantitative air 

quality impact analyses to adequately address air quality impacts from oil and gas development. The 

AQD is raising this issue with respect to the Pinedale RMP where individual oil and gas development 

projects within the Pinedale Field Office area are likely to be concentrated and of greater intensity. The 

AQD will also be raising this issue with respect to other RMP revisions where individual oil and gas 

development projects are likely to be both widely separated throughout the planning area as well as 

concentrated and of greater intensity. While the level of reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development 

varies for each RMP, potential air quality impacts are of concern to the AQD for each RMP revision.

Response: Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the U.S. Congress granted federal agencies the ability to 

use a “Categorical Exclusion” to eliminate further NEPA analyses for the purpose of exploration or 

development of oil or gas for the following activities: 

1. Individual surface disturbance less than 5 acres and total lease surface disturbance is less than 

150 acres and a site-specific NEPA analysis has previously been completed; 

2. Drilling a well at a location where drilling has already occurred less than 5 years previously; 

3. Drilling a well within a developed field where it was included as a reasonable foreseeable activity 

in a previous NEPA analysis less than 5 years previously; 

A27-98 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

4. Placement of a pipeline in an approved right-of-way corridor, IF the corridor was approved less 

than 5 years previously; or 

5. Minor maintenance (not construction, major renovations, buildings, or facilities). 

None of these “exclusions” apply to ancillary facilities such as well pumps, separators/dehydrators, tanks, 

haul trucks, or compressors. In addition, the U.S. Congress did not require the use of these “Categorical 

Exclusions.” 

In most cases, existing Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations allow these activities to 

proceed without additional NEPA analysis through the use of “tiering” and/or “referencing.” This is 

clearly the case for activities 1 and 3 — an existing analysis is likely to be sufficient for similar future 

proposals. Under activity 2, the first well on site would have been subject to a full NEPA analysis, which 

could be “referenced” by similar future well drilling. Under activity 4, the original right-of-way approval 

would have been subject to a full NEPA analysis, which would have included potential construction and 

operation impacts. Finally, minor maintenance (activity 5) is likely to have been included in the previous 

relevant NEPA analysis and record of decision.

Comment: When specific oil and gas development is identified at the implementation stage, the AQD 

expects the BLM to conduct quantitative air quality impact analyses that are proportional to the type (e.g., 

coalbed natural gas, oil or gas) and intensity (i.e., development pace and scale) of the project based on the 

locations and emission levels of proposed project sources, surrounding geographical and topographical 

characteristics, and the site-specific meteorology. The quantitative air quality impact analyses should be 

conducted to estimate impacts to air quality (e.g., ambient air quality standards) and air quality related 

values (e.g., visibility, atmospheric deposition). If the quantitative air quality impact analysis shows that 

significant impacts are possible, air quality mitigation measures must be considered. If such a need 

becomes evident during the life of the RMP, the AQD expects the BLM to consult with AQD on the 

necessary air quality impact analyses and mitigation measures. Without the above quantitative air quality 

analysis, it is the AQD’s position that a RMP could be in violation of the National Environmental Policy 

Act and the associated Council on Environmental Quality regulations.

Response: Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the U.S. Congress granted federal agencies the ability to 

use a “Categorical Exclusion” to eliminate further NEPA analyses for the purpose of exploration or 

development of oil or gas for the following activities: 

1. Individual surface disturbance less than 5 acres and total lease surface disturbance is less than 

150 acres and a site-specific NEPA analysis has previously been completed; 

2. Drilling a well at a location where drilling has already occurred less than 5 years previously; 

3. Drilling a well within a developed field where it was included as a reasonably foreseeable activity 

in a previous NEPA analysis less than 5 years previously; 

4. Placement of a pipeline in an approved right-of-way corridor, IF the corridor was approved less 

than 5 years previously; or 

5. Minor maintenance (not construction, major renovations, buildings, or facilities). 

None of these “exclusions” apply to ancillary facilities such as well pumps, separators/dehydrators, tanks, 

haul trucks, or compressors. In addition, the U.S. Congress did not require the use of these “Categorical 

Exclusions”. 

Pinedale RMP A27-99 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

In most cases, existing CEQ regulations allow these activities to proceed without additional NEPA 

analysis through the use of “tiering” and/or “referencing.” This is clearly the case for activities 1 and 3 — 

an existing analysis is likely to be sufficient for similar future proposals. Under activity 2, the first well on 

site would have been subject to a full NEPA analysis, which could be “referenced” by similar future well 

drilling. Under activity 4, the original right-of-way approval would have been subject to a full NEPA 

analysis, which would have included potential construction and operation impacts. Finally, minor 

maintenance (activity 5) is likely to have been included in the previous relevant NEPA analysis and 

record of decision. 

Comment: The BLM has put forth four proposed alternatives as part of this draft EIS/RMP. The 

preferred alternative (4) does not come close to satisfying the BLM’s responsibility to ensure no 

significant environmental impacts and to “provide for compliance” with the Clean Air Act. Even 

alternative 3, which is the most protective of the environment, is not close to being adequate because it 

allows for continued growth in emissions when there are existing visibility problems, predicted PSD 

increment violations, exceedances of the ozone standard and values approaching the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). The BLM must put forth an alternative that ensures no significant impacts 

and full compliance with the Clean Air Act. This would include one that reverses the impacts on visibility 

that are already occurring in most of the nearby Class I areas, including the Bridger Wilderness and 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness areas, and Grand Teton National Park. An acceptable alternative should also 

prevent significant deterioration of air quality in the planning area and ensure no violations of the ozone 

NAAQS. Attached are more detailed comments on the important elements of air quality protection, which 

this Draft EIS/RMP is lacking.

Response: BLM believes that the alternatives have been rigorously explored given the level of 

information that was available. BLM has taken the initiative to evaluate cumulative BLM activities on a 

larger scale. Also, BLM quantifies impacts for site-specific projects where data on specific activities are 

known. NEPA does not require a quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, 

EPA, USFS, NPS, and BLM) worked collaboratively with BLM on the analysis methodology.

Comment: Under NEPA, the BLM has obligations to assess and report the cumulative impacts of 

expected emissions in the Pinedale area on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) increments, and air quality related values (AQRVs), and to 

identify alternatives or other mitigation measures sufficient to prevent expected violations of NAAQS, 

PSD increments and adverse impacts on AQRVs (e.g., visibility impairment). NEPA also mandates that 

the preparation of an environmental impact statement be done with "scientific integrity" and requires that 

information be collected as needed unless the costs would be exorbitant or the means to do so are 

unknown. Furthermore, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) mandates that, “In the 

development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall . . . (8) provide for compliance with 

applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution 

standards or implementation plans...” (43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(8); See also 43 CFR § 2920.7(b)(3) 

(requiring the same for land use authorizations). In order to meet its obligation under FLPMA to “provide 

for compliance” with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the BLM must conduct a quantitative 

analysis of the air quality impacts in the Pinedale area. 

Furthermore, the language in NEPA requires that the federal government “(C) include in every 

recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on -- (i) 

the environmental impact of the proposed action,...” (42 USC § 4332) To provide further details for this 

requirement, the BLM’s planning regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) mandate that the 

analysis of the effects of alternatives “will estimate and display the physical, biological, economic, and 

social effects of implementing each alternative considered in detail.” Although the regulation later 

A27-100 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

concedes that, “The estimate may be stated in terms of probable ranges where effects cannot be precisely 

determined,”1 the BLM actually can determine the air quality impacts of the alternatives in the Pinedale 

Draft EIS/RMP. Full analyses have already been conducted for the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline Fields, 

which together make up two-thirds of the planned oil and gas development for the entire Pinedale RMP 

area.2

Response: BLM believes that the alternatives have been rigorously explored given the level of 

information that was available. BLM has taken the initiative to evaluate cumulative BLM activities on a 

larger scale. Also, BLM quantifies impacts for site-specific projects where data on specific activities are 

known. NEPA does not require a quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, 

EPA, USFS, NPS, and BLM) worked collaboratively with BLM on the analysis methodology.

Wildlife and Wilderness 

Comment: The Wyoming Wilderness Association is also very concerned about the air quality impacts on 

adjacent designated and future Wilderness Areas. The acidification of our lakes and streams is happening 

along with the decline in visibility—all directly related to the industrialization of the Green River Valley. 

It is evident that certain mitigations are taking place, such as paving or treating roads to keep the dust 

down, but the enforcement and continuation of treatments must be monitored and acted upon. Compressor 

stations, construction, venting, fires/flares, auto and truck emissions plus more are all contributors in an 

industrialized landscape. Industry must use cleaner vehicles, put scrubbers on any generator stack, not be 

allowed to vent gases or flare off wells, no dust tolerance policy in place and other mitigations must be 

implemented, or the Wilderness Act and Clean Air Act will be enforced legally.

Response: BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality 

from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. While ambient 

air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, monitored data at the 

present time are inconclusive.

Comment: The Wind River Wilderness, as I understand, is federally classified as a Class 1 Air Shed, and 

therefore must legally be maintained in a pristine state. The extent of drilling allowed under the so- called 

preferred alternative would clearly impact the air negatively. If any of BLM’s data collection practices in 

the past are indicative of the quality of information gathering on air quality, the air shed is in trouble. 

Some of the maps they use at their public presentations are inaccurate, as some of the BLM people 

admitted to me. And they don’t even have an air quality map showing how and to what degree the air of 

surrounding areas will be affected. I’ve previously encountered several blatant inaccuracies on some of 

their other resource mapping. A plan as far reaching and long lasting as this one cannot be allowed to be 

done based on inaccurate, poor information or trickery of the public at large. The BLM needs to get good 

information on every resource and how they will be affected by oil and gas drilling prior to finalizing any 

new RMP. They will be seriously neglecting their Jobs and our Federal land which we ALL own if they 

don’t.

Response: The best available data were used to prepare the draft EIS and final EIS. Visibility impact 

maps do not exist. However, visibility information on the Bridger Wilderness is in Table 3-2 of the draft 

EIS. BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality from the 

proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern.

Comment: The preferred alternative certainly does not protect the longest wildlife migration corridor in 

the continental U.S., that of the pronghorns. It’s a bad management plan for the Upper Green, that would 

have devastating effects on migrating herds, on native wildlife, and on the local communities already 

threatened by increasingly polluted air, ruined landscapes, and unchecked sprawl. That is simply not 

acceptable. Following we cite facts and scientific research that give credence to our concerns. Of the nine 

Pinedale RMP A27-101 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

wilderness regions and two national parks that lie within the area of, or are in danger of effects from, the 

gas development (Upper Green and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem), seven are designated Class I Air 

Sheds under the Federal Clean Air Act. The areas could be affected by prevailing winds at different times 

of the year. Most importantly, the summer months when drilling activity is highest is also the period when 

winds travel most often toward the Wind River Class I Air Shed and the other Class I regions further 

north. Already local residents of and visitors to the Upper Green River Valley have noticed a particulate 

haze or smoke-like air conditions at certain times, directly attributable to the huge uptick in drilling 

activities seen in the past few years in the region. Moreover, we read in an environmental publication not 

too many months ago that residents of both Dakotas have observed air pollution that had not previously 

been present, believed to be the result of certain patterns of winds carrying pollution from the rapidlyexpanding oil and gas development in western Wyoming. 

Response: BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality 

from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. BLM believes 

the alternatives have been rigorously explored given the level of information that was available. 

BLM has taken the initiative to evaluate cumulative BLM activities on a larger scale through the State of 

the Atmosphere model. This quantification will be performed annually; with the first report due by mid 

2008. Also, BLM quantifies impacts for site-specific projects where data on specific activities are known. 

Adequacy of Analysis 

Comment: • BLM can and should conduct a quantitative analysis of air quality impacts and issues as a 

component of the RMP revision process.• BLM has failed to adequately consider and utilize existing air 

quality analyses applicable to the Pinedale Field Office, including the Pinedale Anticline Draft 

Supplemental EIS and the Jonah Infill EIS. • The numerous severe impacts to air quality, such as 

exceedances of the ozone standard and modeled violations of Class II increments, that are occurring in the 

Pinedale Field Office are not adequately considered or addressed in the RMP DEIS.

Response: NEPA does not require a quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, 

EPA, USFS, NPS, and BLM) worked collaboratively with BLM on the analysis methodology. 

Modeling is more appropriately conducted at the project implementation level, such as for the Jonah and 

Anticline EISs, where BLM has a specific proposal and information on well numbers, placement, and 

methods to conduct the modeling. BLM has included air quality information from the Pinedale Anticline 

Draft Supplemental EIS and Jonah EIS, as appropriate, in the final EIS. While ambient air quality 

conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, monitored data at the present time 

are inconclusive. 

Comment: • The BLM’s air quality emissions inventory is inadequate.

Response: In concert with the air quality advisory group, the emissions inventory used best available data 

and accepted emissions factors.

Comment: This Draft EIS/RMP does not adequately analyze the air quality impacts that could occur as a 

result of the actions authorized under the Pinedale RMP, therefore, failing to comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA). The air 

emissions estimates included in the Draft EIS/RMP are not an acceptable replacement for a quantitative 

assessment of the environmental and public health impacts resulting from an increase in air pollution in 

an area already heavily impacted by the adverse effects of increasing development. The BLM states 

throughout this document that specific information on air pollution and impacts analyses is not available 

and consequently the analysis is only qualitative. However, because the BLM is in the process of 

A27-102 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

approving several specific development projects in the Pinedale RMP area the BLM already has exact 

data as to where the oil and gas fields (the primary air pollution source in the area) are as well as expected 

emissions information for these projects.

Response: NEPA does not require a quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, 

EPA, USFS, NPS, and BLM) worked collaboratively with BLM on the analysis methodology. The RMP 

will not authorize any on-the-ground activity. Specific analysis of air quality impacts, including modeling, 

is conducted at the field development or project EIS stage, as in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline EISs. 

Comment: Providing even more detail, the BLM’s own Land Use Planning Handbook explains that the 

analysis of alternatives in the draft EIS/RMP must ...provide adequate information to evaluate the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts of each alternative in order to determine the best mix of potential 

planning decisions to achieve the identified goals and objectives (the analysis should also specifically 

address the attainment, or nonattainment, of Land Health Standards expressed as goals). The assumptions 

and timeframes used for analysis purposes (such as reasonably foreseeable development scenarios) should 

be documented.3 The BLM has not evaluated the air quality impacts in the Pinedale area as described in 

the Land Use Planning Handbook because they have only evaluated emissions. The only way to evaluate 

actual air quality impacts is to conduct an air quality modeling analysis for the area. The draft EIS/RMP 

should show predicted concentrations (not just predicted emissions) in order to determine compliance 

with CAA requirements. This is the only way in which the BLM can show compliance with air quality 

standards as decreed by FLPMA in 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(8), as cited above.

Response: BLM believes that the alternatives have been rigorously explored given the level of 

information that was available. BLM has taken the initiative to evaluate cumulative BLM activities on a 

larger scale. Also, BLM quantifies impacts for site-specific projects where data on specific activities are 

known. NEPA does not require a quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, 

EPA, USFS, NPS, and BLM) worked collaboratively with BLM on the analysis methodology.

Comment: Fine Particles: Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS/RMP and the Air Quality TSD reference the recent 

changes to the federal standard for fine particles (PM2.5) and state that the rule is not yet final, (see 

Chapter 3, 3-4 and the Air Quality TSD at A19-5). This rule is now final; EPA 15 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g)(6). 

16 70 Fed. Reg. 39104, 39120. 17 69 Fed. Reg. 25184, 25194. 8 published a final rule on October 17, 

2006 with an effective date of December 18, 2006 (see 71 FR 61144). Therefore, the language in this 

RMP should be changed to reflect the new, more stringent PM2.5 rule that lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 

standard from 65 ìg/m3 to 35 ìg/m3. Additionally, Tables 3-1 of Chapter 3 and A19-3 in the Air Quality 

TSD, which cover the background concentrations used in the Draft EIS/RMP, should be revised to show 

the percentage of the new PM2.5 standard achieved in the Pinedale area. The EPA revised the PM2.5 

standard because scientific information showed that the pollutant is a health concern at levels lower than 

what the previous standard allowed. Fine particles of 2.5 microns in size or smaller (PM2.5) are inhalable 

and can be lodged in the lungs or can enter the blood stream, worsening the health of asthmatics and even 

causing premature death in people with heart and lung disease. Fine particles are also the major 

contributor to visibility impairment. Please see EPA’s staff paper on particulate matter (see EPA-452/R05-005a, December 2005) as well as their Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter (see 

EPA/600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF, October 2004) for detailed information on health effects. 

The background concentrations for PM2.5 for this Draft EIS/RMP are from data collected in the Jonah 

Infill development area, 40 miles northwest of Farson, Wyoming. The 24-hour average concentration 

used by the BLM is 18 ìg/m3, a concentration that is over 50% of the revised 24-hour NAAQS. The 

annual average concentration used by the BLM is 6.5 ìg/m3, a concentration that is 43% of the annual 

NAAQS. In fact, the monitoring site in Pinedale, Wyoming has recorded even higher PM2.5 

concentrations. Specifically, the 98th percentile 24-hour average at this site in 2005 was 24 ìg/m3, a 

Pinedale RMP A27-103 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

concentration that is 69% of the 24-hour NAAQS. Unless the BLM can demonstrate why this higher 

concentration does not represent typical background concentrations in the area, the BLM must use the 

higher concentration as a more conservative background concentration when determining compliance 

with the NAAQS. Since the area has already experienced ambient concentrations that are 69% of the 

short-term PM2.5 NAAQS it is imperative that the BLM not allow for growth in the planning area that 

will result in significant fine particle emissions. Major sources of fine particles include fugitive dust from 

construction activities and travel on unpaved roads and combustion emissions (e.g., compressor engines 

and drill rig engines used during oil and gas development). Even if the BLM assumes that background 

concentrations in the area are already at 50% of the short-term PM2.5 NAAQS, the amount of growth 

allowed under any of the alternatives in this Draft EIS/RMP are cause for great concern with respect to 

potential future violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS unless the BLM can drastically reduce the amount of 

fine particle emissions from oil and gas development. The BLM is proposing to allow for a 242% increase 

in annual average PM2.5 emissions between the base year (2001) and 2021. See Draft EIS Appendix 19 

Table A19-11, Alternative 4 (preferred alternative). If the ambient PM2.5 levels in the area are already 

almost 70% of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and over 40% of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS this plan has the 

potential to cause 9 future violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS, depending on where the growth in emissions 

occur. And in fact, even Alternative 3 allows for significant increases in annual average PM2.5 emissions 

(178%) for the same time period. The only way to know for sure if there is the potential for NAAQS 

violations is for the BLM to model these proposed increases in emissions and assess their impacts on 

ambient air concentrations in the planning area. Only then can the public be assured that the air quality in 

the planning area will continue to meet air standards. If the BLM is going to allow growth in oil and gas 

development in the area it must also establish strict and enforceable measures to control fine particle 

emissions from these sources so that the area continues to be in compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS.

Response: This typographical error has been corrected in the final EIS. WDEQ determines which data set 

to consider as background, based on a quality assurance (QA) review, period of record, etc. BLM will 

continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality from the proposed 

project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. NEPA does not require a 

quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, EPA, USFS, NPS, and BLM) worked 

collaboratively with BLM on the analysis methodology. 

Comment: Hazardous Air Pollutants-- The Draft EIS/RMP Air Quality TSD includes language stating 

that, “Because this analysis is qualitative, no specific impact analyses of either short- or long-term 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) impacts are conducted,” (Appendix 19, A19-3). As explained above, the 

Pinedale Draft EIS/RMP should include a quantitative analysis of all air quality issues, and specifically, 

HAPs should be analyzed quantitatively in the Draft EIS/RMP. This section goes further to explain that, 

“HAPs emissions are expected to be similar to those found in other EISs and to be composed of benzene, 

toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, n-hexane, and formaldehyde,” (Appendix 19, A19-4). Relying on analyses 

from past EIS documents for HAPs analysis is a flawed approach for a number of reasons, one reason 

being that previous EISs did not even include all the important pollutants in their analyses. While HAP 

emissions will be similar in the area covered by the RMP as previous EISs for the Pinedale area, previous 

comments on draft EISs for the Pinedale Anticline and the Jonah Infill Project commented that 1,3-

butadiene, secondary formaldehyde and diesel exhaust were left out of the analyses. These HAPs are 

important pollutants, with their own suite of concerns to human health and should indeed be included in 

air quality analyses for this Draft EIS/RMP. 1,3 butadiene is recognized as a known human carcinogen18 

and is a product of the combustion of gasoline and diesel oil, among other things,19 so it is likely to be 

present in the Pinedale area from oil and gas development. In addition, the BLM seems to have only 

quantified primary formaldehyde emissions in previous EISs and not the contribution of other VOCs 

emitted from oil and gas development projects to the formation of secondary formaldehyde in the 

atmosphere downwind from the points of emission. Additionally, the BLM’s previous EISs for oil and 

gas development in the Pinedale area have entirely neglected the cancer risk associated with diesel 

A27-104 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

exhaust emissions from oil and gas development, which may be highly significant. EPA’s health 

assessment for 18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm 19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS, Locating 

and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of 1,3-Butadiene, EPA-454/R-96-008, November 1996. 10 

diesel exhaust found that long-term exposure poses lung cancer risks while short-term exposures can 

cause lung irritation and inflammation.20 Hundreds of heavy diesel trucks will be required to develop and 

operate in the fields, and well drilling will likely be done by large diesel powered drilling rigs. The BLM 

must disclose these potential impacts in association with the risks presented by formaldehyde and benzene 

emissions. Another problem with relying on HAP analyses conducted for previous EISs in the Pinedale 

area is that cumulative impact analyses were likely not conducted for these projects. Under NEPA, the 

BLM must disclose the cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Thus the Draft EIS/RMP, which is 

supposed to provide a cumulative assessment of current and future air quality for the Pinedale area does 

not include an accurate account of HAP impacts on the area. From past EIS documents, it appears that 

most of the BLM’s estimates are only for incremental risk associated with the oil and gas projects, and 

would be imposed on top of existing health risks.

Response: BLM believes that a qualitative analysis of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions is 

appropriate for a management plan of this scale. A detailed HAP analysis is conducted for project-specific 

EISs. NEPA does not require a quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, EPA, 

USFS, NPS, and BLM) worked collaboratively with BLM on the analysis methodology.

Comment: The various impacts to air quality, water quality, environmental quality, and wildlife the EIS 

uses current data to state that the current conditions and have not been exceeded by a certain percentage, 

but have these numbers appear that they have not been extrapolated out to the current proposal of over 

3000 plus Wells. The EIS should provide extrapolation data of the current proposal to obtain a picture of 

the scale of impact that 3000 plus wells will do. With the current proposal, the environmental conditions 

of air and water quality should be properly modeled using computer software done by an outside private 

consulting firm who has experience at modeling ground water and air quality using current data and 

extrapolating the data to model future impacts and conditions. The modeling will help establish the true 

impacts more closely and address them at this time rather than take a wait-and-see and manage it and 

mitigate when it happens. For example, if one had a breach, in any one of the lagoons, how the plume and 

groundwater conditions would behave and if such an event happened, what kind of emergency action plan 

can be implemented to contain and mitigate the breach. Air monitoring can also be examined over a 

regional area to examine ht effects of the dynamics of weather, drilling and particulate matter from the 

current proposal.

Response: The RMP does not analyze any specific proposal or authorize any drilling activity. The RMP 

is an allocation document that establishes allowable uses over the Pinedale planning area. BLM can 

estimate the approximate impacts of a predicted number of wells, which the impact analysis in Chapter 4 

does. NEPA does not require a quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, EPA, 

USFS, NPS, and BLM) worked collaboratively with BLM on the analysis methodology. 

Comment: The BLM Must Prepare a More Thorough Emissions Inventory and Then Use the Inventory 

in a Dispersion Modeling Analysis to Evaluate the Potential Air Quality Impacts of the Proposed 

Management Plan-- As described in detail below, the BLM has failed to include all relevant sources in its 

inventories and has under-predicted emissions from sources it did include. --The Pinedale Anticline 

Emissions Inventories Assume Certain Emissions Controls That are Not Identified as Enforceable 

Mitigation Measures in the Draft EIS/RMP-- The BLM’s emissions estimates for oil and gas development 

are based on a number of assumptions on emissions controls that must be made enforceable if they are to 

be the basis for the BLM’s resource management plan. It is not a reasonable assumption that the 

emissions will be controlled to the extent indicated, unless the BLM will be imposing these reduction 

Pinedale RMP A27-105 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

requirements as enforceable mitigation measures in this Draft EIS/RMP. No commitment to establish 

federally enforceable limits has been made in the draft EIS/RMP. In Section 2.3.1 of the Draft EIS/RMP 

the BLM describes what air quality management measures the BLM will implement to meet the goals of 

the RMP. 

Mostly, the BLM discusses its intent to cooperate with various agencies in the monitoring and collection 

of data. The last paragraph indicates that any “[s]pecial requirements to alleviate air quality impacts 

would be included on a case-by-case basis in use authorizations (including lease stipulations) within the 

scope of BLM’s authority.” Draft EIS/RMP at 2-6. Instead, as part of this Draft EIS/RMP the BLM must 

assess the direct, indirect and cumulative air quality impacts of all emissions sources affecting the 

planning area (i.e., model all relevant emissions to determine air quality concentrations throughout the 

planning area). If the emissions characterization from these sources is based on assumed controls then 

those controls must be established as enforceable mitigation 20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(U.S. EPA), Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust, May 2002, 1-3, available at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. 11 measures in the Draft EIS/RMP. 

Only by modeling the impacts of emissions levels on air quality in the planning area will the BLM be able 

to establish mitigation measures that ensure air quality is protected. The following assumptions are not 

justified without being identified as mitigation measures and made enforceable by the BLM when 

finalizing this Draft EIS/RMP (one that is based on a quantitative modeling assessment of the impacts of 

these emissions on air quality in the planning area). Specifically, the emissions inventories presented in 

the Air Quality TSD assumed 50% control of all fugitive dust emissions from well pad construction and 

roads due to watering. See, for example, “Pinedale NG Gas Well 2001 Base Year 8-06.xls”. A 

requirement to cut fugitive dust emissions in half through watering of construction sites and roads should 

clearly be specified in the Draft EIS/RMP if the BLM plans to base all planning decisions for resource 

development in the area on such a broad and ambitious assumption. In fact, it does not even appear to be a 

realistic assumption that all fugitive dust from construction and roads will be controlled by 50%. The Air 

Quality TSD admits that “[m]itigation measures are included in the emissions inventory that may not be 

achievable in all circumstances” and that “50% reduction in fugitive emissions is assumed based on 

construction road wetting on the unimproved access road to the pad and at the pad, but this level of 

effectiveness is characterized as the maximum possible.” Air Quality TSD at A19-16. This apparently 

unrealistic assumption results in a significant under-prediction of PM emissions (up to 50%) and places 

an even greater emphasis on the importance of ensuring future compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS. (See 

our previous discussion about possible future PM2.5 NAAQS violations under Fine Particles). The VOC 

inventories assume that 70% of condensate tanks will operate with a combustion chamber emission 

control device and that all well condensate production comes from “wells with BACT”. See “Pinedale 

NG Gas Well 2001 Base Year 8-06.xls”, “Assumptions” Worksheet. Furthermore, the NOx emissions 

from compression are based on the assumption that all gas compressors are equipped with BACT with an 

emission rate of 1 gram of NOx per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr). See Assumptions in the emission 

inventory - “Pinedale NG Gas Well 2001 Base Year 8-06.xls”. 

There should be a discussion of Wyoming Department of Air Quality’s BACT requirements and whether 

BACT would apply to all compressor engines under current state rules. Because BACT determinations 

are made on a case-by-case basis, there is no guarantee that similar BACT emission limits will necessarily 

be required for every compressor engine. Therefore, the BLM needs to provide justification that the 

emission limits assumed for compressor engines will be similar to, and not less stringent, than those 

assumed for the BLM’s Pinedale Draft EIS/RMP inventory. Again, these low emission rates must be 

clearly documented in the Draft EIS/RMP if they are the basis for the BLM’s analysis. If in fact these 

assumptions for emissions controls are not realistic, the resultant under-prediction of NOx and VOC 

emissions places an even greater emphasis on the importance of ensuring compliance with the ozone 

NAAQS through strict controls on NOx and VOC emissions sources. (See our previous discussion about 

A27-106 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

likely ozone NAAQS violations above). 12 All of the assumptions considered as mitigation from 

uncontrolled air emissions should be clearly detailed in the Draft EIS/RMP, so that government officials 

that will subsequently be authorizing actions under the resource management plan and issuing air quality 

permits for the air pollution sources will incorporate those mitigations into permits and other 

requirements to make sure the mitigations actually occur. Implementation of these measures will not be 

assured otherwise.

Response: NEPA does not require a quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, 

EPA, USFS, NPS, and BLM) worked collaboratively with BLM on the analysis methodology. WDEQ 

has the regulatory responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in Wyoming. BLM has 

the land management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, such as significance 

criteria and levels of concern. BLM will continue to support air quality monitoring and analysis. BLM 

will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality from the proposed 

project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. 

It is BLM practice to estimate emissions using assumptions that are reasonable but conservative or most 

likely. A BACT discussion has been added to the final EIS. However, applying BACT requirements is the 

prerogative of the WDEQ.

Comment: --The Pinedale DEIS/RMP Emissions Inventories Likely Underestimate NOx Emissions 

From Drill Rigs During Oil and Gas Development-- The 2001 Base Year inventory and the Alternative 1-

4 inventories all calculate NOx emissions from drilling operations based on the use of 2 drill rigs per well 

pad, each 1,000 horsepower (hp). However, a single drill rig in the Pinedale Anticline area ranges in size 

from 3,000 to 5,000 hp (see the Pinedale Anticline DSEIS Air Quality Impact Analysis Technical Support 

Document, Appendix F, December 2006). For the Jonah II EIS, the drill rig size was assumed to be 1,000 

hp but in practice, drill rig sizes have been 2.5 times that size. (See also, Greater Yellowstone Area Air 

Quality Assessment Update, prepared by the Greater Yellowstone Clean Air Partnership, April 2005, 

page 5). The BLM’s assumptions about the number and size of drill rigs in the area appear to grossly 

underestimate emissions from this source. The BLM must use data for the size and number of drill rigs 

that are consistent with actual data from the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Infill development areas, or 

other sources readily available to the BLM. Furthermore, the inventories are based on an average number 

of operating days, per well, of 16. This number appears to also be a gross underestimate of the kinds of 

drilling duration times currently occurring in the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Infill development areas. 

In fact, in our comments to the BLM on the Pinedale Anticline Draft SEIS, we said that the proposed 

action emissions inventory does not appear to be based on long enough drilling activity duration times 

(i.e., the number of days it is predicted to take to drill one well) – and those drilling duration times were, 

on average 46 days per well. The drill rig inventories for the DSEIS were based on information provided 

by the operators for the number and type of drill rigs proposed for each year of development, power 

requirements (hp) and drilling activity duration (e.g., estimates for the number of drilling days per well 

and the number of hours per day of drill rig operation). We commented that the duration rate would need 

to average out to more like 57 days per well, instead of the 46 days per well, on average, that was 

modeled. This average number of drilling days is significantly higher than the 16 used in the Draft 

EIS/RMP. The BLM must use data that are more in line with what is actually occurring in the fields. NOx 

emissions from drill rigs accounts for about 40% of all NOx emissions in oil and gas development. The 

potential underestimation of NOx emissions from this source indicates that the potential for ozone 

impacts could be even higher. As stated previously, we believe that the development proposed in this 

Draft EIS/RMP does not ensure compliance with the ozone NAAQS. Higher potential NOx emissions 

make it all the more important that the BLM consider enforceable and meaningful ways to ensure the 

ozone NAAQS is protected.

Pinedale RMP A27-107 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

Response: BLM agrees but believes that the emissions are still on the high side because tier 0 drill rig 

technology was assumed in the analysis, whereas tier 1-4 will be employed.

Comment: The Pinedale Draft EIS/RMP Does Not Include A Comprehensive Regional Inventory for 

Use in Determining Cumulative Air Quality Impacts In addition to the inventory of oil and gas activities, 

the Air Quality TSD includes a Wyoming Statewide Emission Inventory of state-permitted sources, 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) permitted oil and gas wells and “RFD” 14 

sources (authorized NEPA projects and NEPA projects not yet authorized but for which air emissions 

have been quantified). The inventory for these sources is summarized in Table A19-13. The BLM states 

that “[i]t is expected that these data will someday be integrated with the BLM emissions data to depict all 

emissions in the planning area and can be used for cumulative analysis. Also, this information will be 

needed if air dispersion modeling is performed in the area.” This “Complete Inventory”, as it is titled in 

the BLM’s table, however, does not include anywhere near all of the sources with the potential to impact 

air quality in the same areas impacted by the planning area, as explained below: 

State-Permitted Inventory – The state-permitted source inventory (WDEQ-AQD permitted sources) does 

not consider any sources operating prior to January 1, 2001, unless such sources obtained permits to 

modify between January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2003. The BLM must include all existing sources 

(including those in existence prior to January 1, 2001 as well as those in existence since June 30, 2003) 

that have the potential to impact the same area impacted by the Pinedale planning area. There are no 

details on the WDEQ-AQD permitted sources (i.e., which ones were included, etc.). However, assuming 

the same criteria were used as for the Pinedale Anticline DSEIS and the Jonah Infill DEIS then the statepermitted source emission inventory for Wyoming probably does not include any production sites with 

increases in emissions of less than 3 tons per year (TPY). In addition, it is likely that only production sites 

with emissions increases greater than 3 TPY where a single piece of combustion equipment emitted more 

than 2 TPY were included in the inventory. All other production sites were probably assumed to be 

included in WOGCC production estimates. And as with the other EIS inventories for southwest 

Wyoming, all other facility types (besides production sites) with emissions less than 1 TPY were 

probably also excluded from the Wyoming state-permitted source inventory. Collectively, these sources 

can represent significant emissions of NOx and, therefore, must be properly accounted for in the BLM’s 

inventory. As described in our next comment, the WOGCC inventory does not appear to adequately 

account for these sources. 

WOGCC Inventory – The WOGCC inventory only includes new sources since from January 1, 2002 to 

June 30, 2003 and only includes emissions of NOx (i.e., no PM, VOC or HAP emissions are quantified). 

An emission factor of 0.045 tons of NOx per year per was used to estimate NOx emissions from 

producing natural gas or coalbed natural gas wells. This factor is equivalent to the well emission rates 

calculated for the Jonah Infill Project in 2004. Air Quality TSD at A19-28. As mentioned above, the statepermitted source emission inventory for Wyoming probably does not include any production sites with 

increases in emissions of less than 3 TPY. However, it does not seem possible that these sources were 

included in the WOGCC inventory based on the number of wells permitted in the area during the 

inventory period. For example, according to the WOGCC website, there were 686 permits to drill issued 

in Sublette and Teton counties between January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2003. According to Table A19-12 

WOGCC’s total NOx emissions for these two counties are 2 TPY, which would mean that each well 

emitted, on average, 0.0029 TPY. Using an emission rate of 0.045 TPY per well for the 686 wells that 

received permits to drill would result in 15 times more NOx emissions than the inventory estimate. The 

BLM must make sure that all sources that were potentially excluded from the state-permitted inventory 

are adequately accounted for in the WOGCC inventory. It does not appear that this is the case. It appears 

that the regional inventory under-predicts NOx emissions from these sources. This limitation must be 

corrected, or at least explained. Furthermore, the WOGCC inventory did not include any estimates of PM, 

A27-108 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

VOC or HAP emissions from these production sites. This is a significant oversight to not include these 

emissions in the regional inventory. 

RFD Inventory - The RFD inventory only includes NEPA-authorized and other quantifiable emissions 

since June 30, 2003. The BLM must include all reasonably foreseeable sources that could impact the 

same area impacted by the Pinedale planning area. The reasonably foreseeable development inventory 

only included NEPA-authorized projects and not-yet-authorized NEPA projects for which air emissions 

have been quantified and only includes data since June 30, 2003. Air Quality TSD at A19-28. The 

reasonably foreseeable projects inventory should have included all sources recently permitted or which 

have recently submitted complete PSD permit applications but which are not yet operating, that will have 

an impact on the same areas impacted by the Pinedale planning area. For example, several PSD permit 

applications have been submitted, and some permits have been issued, for coal-fired power plants to be 

located in areas that could impact the same areas as the Pinedale planning area. Coal-fired power plants 

can often have significant impacts on a Class I area even when located 200-300 km or more away from 

that area. Specifically, the following power plants were recently permitted or are proposed in the region: • 

The Wygen 2 and the recently permitted 100 MW Wygen 3 power plants near Gillette, Wyoming • The 

permitted 280 MW Two Elk power plant to be located in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming23 • The 

385 MW Dry Fork power plant near Gillette, Wyoming (permit application submitted) • The permitted 

780 MW Roundup power plant in southeastern Montana • The permitted 160 MW Hardin Generating 

Station, also in southeastern Montana • The permitted 250 MW Highwood Generating Station near Great 

Falls, Montana • The 110 MW Unit 2 at the Bonanza Power Plant in Uintah County in northeast Utah 

(EPA has recently proposed issuance of a permit) • The proposed 600 MW power plant in southern Idaho 

(Jerome County) 22 All permitted wells (oil & gas and coal bed), 1/1/02 – 6/30/03, see 

http://wogcc.state.wy.us/ 23 Although the Two Elk permit expired due to lack of construction, it was 

reissued in May 2003• The proposed 520 MW power plant in southeastern Idaho near Pocatello All of 

these power plants have the potential to impact the same Class I areas that are impacted by the Pinedale 

planning area and, therefore, must be included in the BLM’s regional inventory. In addition, the BLM 

must include in the regional inventory any other new or modified sources, other than power plants, 

proposed in the region. 

The regional inventory must also include any emissions from NEPA projects in other states that could be 

impacting the same area as the Pinedale planning area. There are several NEPA-approved projects in the 

area with remaining emissions that should be included in the RFD inventory. These include Vernal (Utah) 

sources, Price (Utah) RMP sources, Roan Plateau (Colorado) RMP sources, projects in Moffat County, 

Colorado (Little Snake Field Office) such as the Vermillion Basin Project, and the Powder River Basin 

(Montana) coalbed methane sources. The remaining development in the many NEPA-approved projects 

in these areas should be included in the RFD inventory. Finally, VOC emissions estimates were not 

quantified for any of the sources in the regional inventory and those emissions can be quite significant 

and are extremely important considering how close the area is to violating the ozone NAAQS. Thus, the 

reasonably foreseeable development inventory is incomplete and therefore would result in an 

underestimate of cumulative air quality impacts in the region, it was reissued in May 2003

Response: The emission inventory was designed to focus on potential impacts from BLM activities. A 

full RFD inventory is provided in the Pinedale Anticline Supplemental Draft EIS and Jonah EIS. The 

sources referred to in the comment—Vernal (Utah) sources, Price (Utah) RMP sources, Roan Plateau 

(Colorado) RMP sources, projects in Moffat County, Colorado (Little Snake Field Office) such as the 

Vermillion Basin Project, and the Powder River Basin (Montana)—are well outside the Pinedale RMP 

planning area.

Comment: --The Pinedale DRMP/EIS Fails to Include An Analysis of Air Quality Impacts-- As 

discussed above, the Draft EIS/RMP does not include an analysis of the impacts on air quality that could 

Pinedale RMP A27-109 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

occur under the various alternatives of the Pinedale Draft EIS/RMP. A comprehensive emission inventory 

of all air pollution sources should have been used in an air quality dispersion modeling analyses to assess 

the impacts on air quality from the alternatives of the Pinedale Draft EIS/RMP. In order to comply with 

40 C.F.R. §1502.24 (to ensure the professional and scientific integrity of the air quality analysis), the air 

quality analysis should have included the following components: 1. A Near-Field Modeling Analysis to 

Assess Local Air Quality Impacts A near-field modeling analysis of localized maximum ambient air 

impacts should be performed to assess whether the activities allowed under the Pinedale Draft EIS/RMP 

alternatives would comply with the NAAQS and the PSD Class II increments. The inputs for this analysis 

should include all of the air pollution source categories allowed under the alternatives of the Pinedale 

Draft EIS/RMP – e.g., gas development (roads and natural gas engines), coalbed natural gas development, 

increased vehicular traffic, prescribed burning, etc. The maximum emission rates from sources over the 

averaging times of the standard for which compliance is being assessed should be modeled. The modeling 

analysis should be based on at least one year of quality-assured, on-site, representative meteorological 

data or, if no on-site data is available, five years of meteorological data from the closest meteorological 

station representative of the area. See, e.g., Sections 9.3.a., 9.3.1.2., and 9.3.3.2. of EPA’s Guidelines on 

Air Quality Models at 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix W. For the NAAQS analysis, appropriate background 

concentrations reflective of current air quality in the area should be added to the modeling results. It is not 

appropriate to rely on monitoring data to reflect existing source emissions, unless such monitoring data 

has been demonstrated to truly reflect maximum concentrations in the area due to all existing sources that 

are impacting the area. If the sources being modeled are not isolated, as is the case in this modeling 

assessment, then modeling of existing sources is necessary to determine the potential contribution of 

background sources. See Section 9.2.1 of 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix W. A Far-Field Modeling Analysis 

to Assess Air Quality Impacts on the Nearby Class I Areas 

The BLM must perform a far-field modeling analysis to assess whether the activities allowed under the 

various alternatives of the Pinedale Draft EIS/RMP would adversely impact air quality in nearby Class I 

areas. The analysis should include all of the Wyoming Class I areas, as well as Class I areas in other 

States such as Wind Cave National Park, Badlands National Park, the Northern Cheyenne Indian 

Reservation Class I area, Rocky Mountain National Park, the Rawah Wilderness, Mt. Zirkel Wilderness, 

Flat Tops Wilderness and the Eagle’s Nest Wilderness. The maximum emission rates from sources over 

the averaging times of the standard for which compliance is being assessed should be modeled. For 

visibility impacts, this requires modeling of the maximum 24-hour average emission rates. The modeling 

analysis should be based on three years of mesoscale meteorological data, pursuant to Section 9.3.1.2.d. 

of 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix W. The far-field analysis should assess the impacts of the alternatives of 

the Pinedale Draft EIS/RMP on the Class I increments and on air quality related values, including 

visibility. 3. A Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Analysis The BLM must also perform a cumulative 

analysis of air quality impacts that could occur under the various alternatives of the Pinedale Draft 

EIS/RMP. Specifically, both near-field and far-field analyses with sufficient emissions and 

meteorological data inputs as discussed above should be completed to assess compliance with the 

NAAQS and Class II increments as well as to determine impacts on air quality related values and the 

Class I increments in all potentially affected Class I areas. The analysis must include all existing sources 

and reasonably foreseeable sources of air emissions that could impact the same area impacted by the 

Pinedale planning area. For the Class I and Class II increment analyses, an evaluation of all increment 

consuming emissions from the existing sources must be developed, which would include all increases in 

emissions since the applicable minor source baseline date that have occurred at existing sources, as well 

as all new sources of emissions that came into existence after the applicable minor source baseline date 

and reasonably foreseeable sources not yet operating. Because only those emissions that are new after the 

baseline date consume the available PSD increment, it is not acceptable or appropriate to use monitoring 

data as reflective of existing source emissions 18 even, if as stated above, the monitoring data could be 

shown to be reflective of the maximum concentrations of all sources impacting the area. Instead, a 

separate emissions inventory must be developed to reflect those emission changes since the applicable 

A27-110 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

baseline date, and those emissions must be modeled to demonstrate compliance with the increment. These 

impact analyses should be performed for the Pinedale Draft EIS/RMP to provide the public with 

information on the air quality impacts of the various alternatives proposed and so that state government 

officials would be aware of any conflicts that could occur with the objectives of Federal, State, and local 

laws regarding protection of air quality. Such analyses must also be performed so that appropriate 

mitigations can be developed and put into place. The BLM failed to conduct any impact analyses for the 

various alternatives in the Pinedale Draft EIS/RMP and, therefore, is not fulfilling its obligations under 

NEPA. In addition to the air impact analyses described above, the BLM must complete an analysis of 

impacts on ground level ozone concentrations. Ozone precursor emissions (NOx and VOCs) could have a 

significant impact on the region’s compliance with ambient ozone standards in the near future. 

Considering the exceedances of the ozone standard it is extremely important that the impact of the 

Pinedale Draft EIS/RMP on ozone concentrations along with all other existing and expected growth of 

ozone precursor emissions in the region be evaluated. Considering the recent studies on the ozone 

potential of oil and gas development emissions, the elevated ozone concentrations in the region, and the 

health and environmental impacts that can occur, it is imperative that the DRMP/EIS disclose to the 

public the environmental impacts that could occur due to ozone formation from the various alternatives of 

the Pinedale Draft EIS/RMP.24

Response: NEPA does not require a quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, 

EPA, USFS, NPS, and BLM) worked collaboratively with BLM on the analysis methodology.

Comment: Section 4 the admission that in the current air quality analysis, a qualitative approach was 

used, and that a quantitative approach will be used only in the future. That simply is not acceptable. First, 

why has BLM not required, or caused the companies to acquire, adequate air pollution data from the 

existing development over the last several years? Second, given the unfortunate situation that actual site 

monitoring data is not now adequate enough to determine what the impacts already are from existing 

fields, then the only correct scientific approach is not to present qualitative information as enough 

science-based data. Instead, this is the time for a proper Draft to present a series of steps to acquire the 

needed data, and to not proceed with a new RMP until that data is in hand, properly peer-reviewed, and 

analyzed. It is not as though the BLM did not know until a few months ago that it had the responsibility to 

do revise the plan; it was incumbent upon the agency to see to it that the State and Federal agencies 

responsible for air quality monitoring, for example, did so in advance of this plan preparation so that 

accurate monitoring data could have be used to plan effectively. 

Response: The best available data were used in preparing the draft EIS and final EIS. NEPA does not 

require a quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, EPA, USFS, NPS, and 

BLM) worked collaboratively with BLM on the analysis methodology. BLM will continue to require 

proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality from the proposed project are below 

applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. WDEQ has the regulatory responsibility and 

authority to enforce air quality regulations in Wyoming. BLM has the land management authority and 

responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, such as significance criteria and levels of concern. BLM 

will continue to support air quality monitoring and analysis.

Comment: The Pinedale Draft EIS/RMP Emissions Inventories Likely Underestimate PM Emissions 

From Oil and Gas Development As previously mentioned, the BLM assumes all fugitive dust emissions 

from construction and from travel on unpaved roads are controlled by 50% due to watering, yet the BLM 

does not specify in the Draft EIS/RMP that this level of control will be implemented. If this level of 

control does not occur as assumed then the BLM’s estimates for PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from these 

sources underestimate what will actually occur in the planning area. In addition, the Pinedale Draft 

EIS/RMP emissions inventories assume certain conversion factors for particulate matter that likely result 

in an underestimate of PM emissions from construction activities. The 2001 Base Year inventory and the 

Pinedale RMP A27-111 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

Alternative 1-4 inventories all calculate fugitive dust emissions from construction using an emission 

factor for total suspended particulate matter (TSP) from Heavy Construction Operations of 1.2 tons per 

acre-month (EPA, AP-42, Vol 1, Sec 13.2.3, 1995) and then assume 26% of the TSP emissions are PM10 

emissions and 15% of the PM10 emissions are PM2.5 emissions. See, for example, “Pinedale NG Gas 

Well 2001 Base Year 8-06.xls” under “ng-pad const.-fug dust”. In fact, the 26% PM10 fraction may result 

in an underestimate of both PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, especially from road construction, which is a 

significant part of the construction process for oil and gas development. Road construction generally 

involves extensive earthmoving and heavy construction vehicle travel resulting in higher emissions than 

for other construction activities. More commonly, PM10 calculations are estimated assuming 35% of TSP 

emissions fall in the PM10 size range for road construction emissions (as opposed to 26%).21 The use of 

a higher emission factor would result in higher PM10 and PM2.5 emissions (since PM2.5 emissions are 

calculated as a percentage of PM10 emissions) from construction-related fugitive dust. Fugitive dust from 

construction and roads accounts for about 60% of all PM emissions in oil and gas development. 

Therefore, the potential underestimation of PM emissions from these sources indicates that the potential 

for PM10 and PM2.5 impacts could be even more significant. As stated previously, it is unclear whether 

the increases in PM2.5 emissions allowed in this Draft EIS/RMP will provide for compliance with PM2.5 

NAAQS in the longterm. Higher potential PM emissions make it all the more important that the BLM 

consider enforceable and meaningful ways to reduce particulate matter emissions.

Response: It is BLM’s practice to estimate emissions using assumptions that are reasonable but 

conservative or most likely.

Comment: In the Pinedale RMP analysis, BLM selected the year 2001 as a base year. In that year, BLM 

reported that NOx emissions were only 226 tons per year. Given the amount of development including 

production, compressors and drilling that occurred in the region at that time, the level of 2001 emissions 

appears to be understated. Since 2001 is the year used as the basis for estimating emission growth in the 

RMP, BLM needs to include detailed information in the RMP document that supports the 2001 base level 

emissions. This documentation should also be included in the ancillary spreadsheets. 

BLM estimated growth in emissions for the periods of 2001 through 2011 and 2011 through 2021. For the 

first 10 year period, six years have already elapsed and much of the estimated growth in oil and gas 

emissions has occurred. It is recommended that BLM provide a listing of equipment and emissions that 

have been installed between 2001 and the present. For the remaining 4 years of the initial 10 year period, 

BLM needs to provide detailed information in the RMP document that indicates how potential growth 

was estimated. These estimates should correlate with recent EISs (well count, compression, construction 

and drilling) in the region as well as other anticipated oil and gas development. The same approach should 

be taken for the 2011 through 2021 period and estimates of equipment growth should be included in the 

RMP document. 

Item: Page A19-1, Regulatory Framework “The basic framework for controlling air pollutants in the 

United States is mandated by the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments, and the 1999 Regional 

Haze Regulations. The CAA addresses criteria air pollutants, state and national ambient air quality 

standards for criteria air pollutants, and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 

Regional Haze Regulations address visibility impairment.” 

Comment–It is suggested that the paragraph on regulatory framework be changed as suggested in the 

following. As written in the RMP, the paragraph is incomplete and does not accurately reflect the current 

regulatory framework. 

Regulatory Framework The basic framework for controlling air pollutants in the United States is 

mandated by the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments, EPA regulations and State and local air 

A27-112 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

quality regulations. The CAA addresses criteria air pollutants, state and national ambient air quality 

standards for criteria air pollutants, and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. EPA 

regulations address ambient air quality standards, emission control technology, modeling and monitoring 

and AQRV impacts including regional haze. State and local agencies can impose more stringent 

regulations than federal standards. In addition, a section should be added that discusses current emission 

control requirements. There are substantial new regulations being proposed by EPA that will ultimately 

reduce emissions and a discussion of these is needed in the document (i.e., NSPS for Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engines). 

Item: Page A19-2-3, Discussion on Criteria Pollutants “• Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2 is a red-brown gas 

formed during operation of internal combustion engines. Such engines emit a mixture of nitrogen gases, 

collectively called nitrogen oxides (NOx). NOx can contribute to brown cloud conditions and can convert 

to ammonium nitrate particles and nitric acid, which can cause visibility impairment and acid rain. 

Bacterial action in soil can be a natural source of nitrogen compounds. • Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 forms 

during combustion from trace levels of sulfur in coal or diesel fuel. It can convert to ammonium sulfate 

((NH4)2SO4) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which can cause visibility impairment and acid rain. Volcanoes 

are natural sources of SO2. Anthropogenic sources include refineries and power plants. • Ozone. O3 is a 

faint blue gas that is generally not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is formed from NOx and 

volatile reactive organic compound (VOC) emissions. Internal combustion engines are the main source of 

NOx. Volatile organic compounds, like terpenes, are very reactive. Sources of VOCs include, but are not 

limited to, paint, varnish, and some types of vegetation. The faint acrid smell common after 

thunderstorms is caused by ozone formation by lightning. O3 is a strong oxidizing chemical that can burn 

lungs and eyes, and damage plants. • Particulate Matter. Particulate matter (e.g., soil particles, hair, 

pollen, etc.) is essentially small particles suspended in the air that settle to the ground slowly and may be 

resuspended if disturbed. Separate allowable concentration levels for particulate matter are based on the 

relative size of the particle: – PM10 particles with diameters smaller than 10 micrometers are small 

enough to be inhaled and can cause adverse health effects. – PM2.5 particles with diameters smaller than 

2.5 micrometers are so small that they can be drawn deeply into the lungs and cause serious health 

problems. Particles in this size range are also the main cause of visibility impairment.” Comment: It is 

suggested that the discussion on pollutants be modified as indicated in the following: Nitrogen Dioxide. 

NO2 is a highly reactive compound formed at high temperatures during operation of fossil fuel 

combustion, At high concentrations, it can form a red-brown gas. At concentrations in excess of the EPA 

air quality standard, it is a respiratory irritant, however, all areas of the United States are in compliance 

with this air quality standard. During fossil fuel combustion, NO is released into the air which reacts in 

the atmosphere to form NO2. NO plus NO2 is a mixture of nitrogen gases, collectively called nitrogen 

oxides (NOx). NOx emissions can convert to ammonium nitrate particles and nitric acid which can cause 

visibility impairment and acid rain. 

Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 forms during combustion from trace levels of sulfur compounds in fuels (i.e, coal, 

sour gas or diesel fuel). At concentrations in excess of national air quality standards, it is a severe 

respiratory irritant. SO2 can convert to ammonium sulfate ((NH4)2SO4) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4), 

which can cause visibility impairment and acid rain. Volcanoes are natural sources of SO2. 

Anthropogenic sources include refineries and power plants. 

Response: The emission inventory was designed to focus on potential impacts from BLM activities. The 

best available data for BLM sources on BLM-administered lands were used. Further, the emissions 

inventory was updated in 2006; therefore, BLM believes the emissions inventory is adequate. Base 

emissions will be recalculated for project-specific proposals. 

Comment: Ozone. O3 is a faint blue gas that is generally not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is 

formed in the atmosphere from complex photochemical reactions involving NO2 and volatile reactive 

Pinedale RMP A27-113 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

organic compounds (VOC) Internal combustion engines are one source of NOx. However, typically coal 

fired power plants have the highest NOx emissions although any combustion source will produce NOx. . 

Sources of VOCs include, but are not limited to, automotive emissions, paint, varnish, oil and gas 

operations and some types of vegetation. The faint acrid smell common after thunderstorms is caused by 

ozone formation by lightning. O3 is a strong oxidizing chemical that can burn lungs and eyes, and 

damage plants. Ozone is a severe respiratory irritant at concentrations in excess of the federal standards. 

EPA is currently in the process of revising the ozone standard as part of its statutory requirements under 

the CAA. • Particulate Matter. Particulate matter (e.g., soil particles, hair, pollen, etc.) is essentially small 

particles suspended in the air that settle to the ground slowly and may be resuspended if disturbed. 

Separate allowable concentration levels for particulate matter are based on the relative size of the particle: 

– PM10 particles with diameters smaller than 10 micrometers are small enough to be inhaled and can 

cause adverse health effects at concentrations in excess of the standard. – PM2.5 particles with diameters 

smaller than 2.5 micrometers are so small that they can be drawn deeply into the lungs and cause serious 

health problems at concentrations in excess of the standard. Particles in this size range are also the main 

cause of visibility impairment.”

Response: The best available data were used in preparing the draft EIS and final EIS. The emission 

inventory was designed to focus on potential impacts from BLM activities. Detailed information on 

sources, emissions inventory, etc., were included in the final EIS as they were available.

Collaboration with Other Agencies 

Comment: we urge continued work with partners to evaluate and consider implementation of other 

potential emission mitigation solutions, such as electrification of the well field, slower paced 

development, voluntary emission offsets from existing sources (in-field or otherwise), and energy 

conservation and efficiency measures. 

Response: BLM is committed to working together.

Comment: • TU suggests that the BLM strengthen the objectives to work more closely with EPA and the 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to decrease air emissions and seek alternative technologies 

to reduce air quality impacts. Collaborating with these agencies in a proactive manner (prior to granting 

APD’s) on a landscape scale instead of just offering to cooperate where required would help formulate 

advancements in strengthening the goal of minimizing impacts on air quality.

Response: BLM will continue to work closely and cooperatively with EPA and WDEQ to assess air 

quality impacts in the project area.

Climate Change 

Comment: The key word is “photosynthesis!” This of course in nature’s way of removing CO2 from the 

air and converting it into plant material, the stuff of all animal life. The problem is that the present level of 

photosynthesis in no way can handle the billions (yes, BILLIONS) of tons of CO2 that we dump into the 

air annually. We have cut down practically all of our forests and are busy paving over all of the fields 

which have replaced them. But there is an active research program to develop ARTIFICIAL 

photosynthesis. This activity should be pushed hard and advanced into an Apollo-type program to put this 

into being. Look it up on Google or Yahoo to see the thousands of entries on this, then e-mail me at 

wafelt@verizon.net. As someone who’s deeply concerned about the future of America’s wild places and 

unspoiled lands, I support Alternative 3 as the BLM considers a management plan for the Upper Green 

River Valley.

Response: Artificial photosynthesis policy is outside the scope of this RMP.

A27-114 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Air Quality 

Other Issues 

Comment: However, there are some effects that need to be considered with a dramatic increase in 

airborne particulates that enter into our snow pack in layer upon layer: increased early season runoff. You 

see these partides that accumulate in our snow, layer upon layer, retain heat just like a rock in the snow 

and melt the snow around it faster than the surrounding pack. CSU, in Ft. Collins has done extensive 

studies surrounding their own complicated water issues that proved this effect on their runoff from the 

pollution in the Front Range of Colorado. Once these airborne partides are released into a density that’s 

considered pollution in our area, it is likely that what little snow we have anymore will runoff a bit 

quicker and will have a bit less at the tale end of our irrigation run. 

Response: BLM is aware that this may be an issue and it is working on it. Please see enclosed URL and 

reference: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/ Painter T. H., A. P. Barrett, C. C. Landry, J. C. Neff, M. P. 

Cassidy, C. R. Lawrence, K. E. McBride, G. L. Farmer (2007), Impact of disturbed desert soils on 

duration of mountain snow cover, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L12502, DOI:10.1029/2007GL030284. 

Comment: Since that time, 1982 - 1987 approximately, three of the key indicators have changed 

adversely. These indicators are visibility, acid neutralizing capacity of some of the lakes, and the nitrate 

content of certain lakes. Additionally, from other monitoring conducted in the area ozone has been 

detected at rather high concentrations. What is alarming to me is that two of the indicators, visibility and 

the lake water nitrates, began to change prior to the present Jonah and Pinedale anticline gas field 

development so that any increase in air pollution from these fields will only accelerate the decline. 

Furthermore, there are two additional oil/gas fields in the planning stage in the Rock Springs to Baggs 

area which have the potential of adding even more air pollution to the lake and streams of the Bridger 

Wilderness. The more recent decrease in acid neutralizing capacity coupled with the increase in lake 

nitrates is an even more serious alarm bell since it heralds a probable acidification of the lakes with 

increasing air, pollution.

Response: BLM is aware that this may be an issue; please see enclosed reference: Jill S. Baron. 2006. 

Hindcasting Nitrogen Deposition To Determine An Ecological Critical Load. Ecological Applications, 

16(2), 2006, pp. 433–439.

Comment: The DRMP imposes tier 4 emission requirements, yet this requirement is not advisable. The 

technology to achieve tier 4 emission standards is not yet available, has not been technically proven, and 

will not become widely available until 2010. References to specific technology are not appropriate in a 

twenty year plan, since technologies may become obsolete and superseded by technology that better 

protects air quality. Such determinations are appropriately left to the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ). 

Response: Tier 4 is included as an example, to be used in the future when available. BLM will continue 

to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality from the proposed project are 

below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. 

Comment: My suggestion is to slow oil and gas development until the technology can catch up with 

itself and the trend in our increasingly poor air quality is reversed. (And that’s just what I can see, let 

alone what we breathe, but you’ll have to ask a scientist for those statistics.) The key is to take oil and gas 

development slowly and the preferred Alternative 4 isn’t slow enough and allows for too many loopholes.

Response: BLM does not have authority to prohibit development of valid existing oil and gas leases. The 

areas available and not available for leasing have been revised in the final EIS. BLM will continue to 

require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality from the proposed project are 

Pinedale RMP A27-115 
Appendix 27—Air Quality Final EIS 

below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern. While ambient air quality conditions and air 

quality-related values may appear to be worsening, monitored data at the present time are inconclusive. 

A27-116 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cultural Resources 

Cultural Resources 

General Comment Responses: No GCRs are associated with this category.

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes 

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-18: Lander Trails Agreement omitted. Recommendations: The RMP 

should reference or incorporate the Lander Trail PA, which currently governs management of a segment 

of the Lander Trail.

Response: The Shell/Ultra Lander Trail Programmatic Agreement (PA) is found in the recently published 

draft SEIS for the Anticline as an appendix. The final EIS references the PA. 

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-34: “Lands actions would be prohibited or would require special 

mitigation measures within 1 mile or the visual horizon (whichever is nearer) of the Lander Trail and the 

Sublette Cutoff Trail and also within 1 mile of contributing segments of these trails. This is an additional 

three-quarter mile over Alternative 2, and these restrictions could result in rerouting of ROWs and 

additional costs to ROW proponents, and also in prohibiting other lands and realty authorizations. Under 

Alternative 1, these restrictions would not occur, and under Alternative 2, the restriction would be for one 

quarter mile; thus, this alternative would be more restrictive and would therefore have more impact on the 

lands and realty program.” The RMP should reference or incorporate the Lander Trail PA, which 

currently governs management of a segment of the Lander Trail. 

Response: You are correct. The Shell/Ultra Lander Trail PA is found in the recently published draft SEIS 

for the Anticline as an appendix. Overall, we are trying to incorporate National Historic Trail setting 

management in this RMP in a more holistic manner. See also the comments received by the National Park 

Service, the Oregon California Trails Association, and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) for National Historic Trails recommendations.

Comment: Page Number & Issue: 2-76, Alternative 3: Objective 1 Protect NRHP-eligible cultural sites 

and national historic trails. Actions i. The area within 1 mile of the Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails 

would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. j. Surface occupancy would be prohibited within 1 mile of 

the Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails. 2-79: “ Recommendations: This is unnecessarily restrictive and not 

realistic; USQ recommends its modification and/or deletion. 

Response: An adequate range of alternatives is provided for analysis purposes. Alternatives 2 and 4 are 

less restrictive than Alternative 3.

Comment: Page Number & Issue: 2-51: Management Objective and Actions Objective 1 “Protect 

NRHP-eligible cultural sites and national historic trails. Actions: b. Surface disturbing activities would be 

prohibited within one-quarter mile or the visual horizon (whichever is nearer) of the Lander and Sublette 

Cutoff Trails. c. Surface occupancy would be prohibited within one quarter mile of contributing segments 

of the Lander Trail and the Sublette Cutoff (Map 3-1). Recommendations: The RMP should reference or 

incorporate the Lander Trail Programmatic Agreement (PA), which currently governs management of a 

segment of the Lander Trail. 

Response: Correct. The Shell/Ultra Lander Trail PA is referenced in the Pinedale Anticline SEIS. The 

final EIS has been revised to reference the PA. 

Comment: Page Number & Issue: 2-76, Alternative 3: Objective 1 Protect NRHP-eligible cultural sites 

and national historic trails. Actions: i. The area within 1 mile of the Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails 

would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. j. Surface occupancy would be prohibited within 1 mile of 

Pinedale RMP A27-117 
Appendix 27—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

the Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails. Recommendations: The RMP should reference or incorporate the 

Lander Trail PA, which currently governs management of a segment of the Lander Trail.

Response: Correct. The Shell/Ultra Lander Trail PA is referenced in the Pinedale Anticline SEIS. The 

final EIS has been revised to reference the PA. 

Comment: Pa2-114, 2-115: “Alternative 4: Management Objective and Actions. Objective 1 Protect 

NRHP-eligible cultural sites and national historic trails. f. The Lander Trail and its visual historic setting 

would be protected through establishment of a VRM Class II designation for about 84,380 acres of public 

land within 2 miles of contributing segments of the trail (Map 2-30). i. Surface occupancy or disturbance 

would be prohibited except for linear crossings within one quarter mile of the Lander Trail. 1. In addition 

to the one-quarter mile NSO in the South Piney Canyon Area, CSU stipulations would be applied for the 

next three-quarters of a mile on either side of the Lander Trail, for a total stipulation area of 1 mile on 

either side of the trail. j. Surface occupancy would be prohibited within 1 mile on either side of the 

Sublette Cutoff Trail. Recommendations: The RMP should reference or incorporate the Lander Trail PA, 

which currently governs management of a segment of the Lander Trail.

Response: Correct. The Shell/Ultra Lander Trail PA is referenced in the Pinedale Anticline SEIS and is 

printed as an appendix to this document. 

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-12: “Minerals management actions resulting in construction that is 

visible on or above the surface would have the potential to directly impact the visual integrity of cultural 

properties that derive their significance from natural settings or from settings relatively devoid of modern 

intrusion. For example, portions of the Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff Recommendations: The RMP 

should reference or incorporate the Lander Trail PA, which currently governs management of a segment 

of the Lander Trail.

Response: The following text has been added to the Cultural Resource Management section under 

Actions Common to All Alternatives (draft EIS page 2-6): “Management of the Lander Trail and trail 

setting within the boundaries of the Pinedale Anticline Project Area would be consistent with the Lander 

Trail Programmatic Agreement.”

Comment: We would like to see the preferred alternative also specify the following: 

• No surface occupancy and no OHV use on original wagon ruts and swales (Class 1 trail per the 

Oregon-California Trails Association’s [OCTA] Mapping Emigrant Trail [MET] classification 

protocol) . An explicit goal to nominate eligible trail sites and segments to the National Register 

of Historic Places 

• Enhanced protection of the Buckskin Crossing-Sand Springs-Muddy Creek segments of the 

Lander Road and their setting from visual intrusions, at the same level as that proposed for the 

Sublette Cutoff 

• Prohibition of hard mineral exploration and development within one mile of the Sublette Cutoff 

• Reclamation of abandoned development sites visible from the historic trails

Response: BLM agrees with this comment about closing National Historic Trail (NHT) swales to OHV 

use and will blend this into our transportation planning and road designation efforts. Most Pinedale Field 

Office trail ruts are two-track routes that do support light vehicular use without damage; however, BLM 

also agrees that it should consider additional closures of fragile trail resources. BLM agrees that it is 

A27-118 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cultural Resources 

desirable to close the Sublette Cutoff Trail to salable minerals. There is no recognized locatable mineral 

potential in this area and, therefore, BLM feels pursuing a locatable mineral withdrawal is unwarranted. 

Comment: • Page 2-114, management Objective and Actions, says that “select NRHP-eligible sites 

would be protected from inappropriate use, erosion, trampling, or other damage.” What is meant by 

“select NRHP-eligible sites”? As currently worded, the statement implies that some eligible sites would 

not be “selected” for that level of protection. BLM has responsibility for appropriate management of all 

eligible sites, and language should be included to reflect this responsibility. Any selection process, if that 

is what is being proposed, should be predicated upon which site needs protection measures. What 

selection criteria would be employed for identifying protected sites - and how would they be protected?

Response: Pinedale Field Office staff originally prepared a list of all the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP)-eligible sites by common name and Smithsonian number (e.g., 48LN39, aka Names Hill; 

48SU301, aka The Wardell Buffalo Trap). It was decided that listing the sites by common name posed an 

additional threat and the actual site names and numbers were removed. BLM does have a list of the 

“select sites” which can be provided to NPS in a proprietary manner. BLM’s selection process includes 

those sites deemed most prone to vandalism and erosion, such as communal bison kill sites, all rock art 

sites, historic inscription sites, and sites in high-use recreation areas such as Boulder Lake and Trapper’s 

Point.

Comment: Page 2-114, Objective 1, Action f and on Page 2-160, Historic trail protection actions, 

Alternative 4: We request the BLM establish the VRM Class II designation within 3 miles of the historic 

trails. This distance is generally considered to be the viewshed foreground and will more adequately 

protect the setting of these important cultural resources. Further, this language is compatible with 

recommendations for trails management in the preferred alternative in the draft Casper RMP and is 

acceptable to our office. We strongly recommend the National Historic Trails not be managed differently 

by various BLM field offices.

Response: BLM’s Visual Resource Management (VRM) strategy was conducted through a team 

approach with a formal visibility assessment, averaging all values while placing additional value on the 

NHTs in the planning area. While much of the NHTs in Pinedale did value out as VRM Class II, some 

valued out as VRM Class III, based on 2005 settings. BLM concurs that it is desirable to manage NHTs 

as consistently as possible. For trail segments managed as VRM Class II, VRM designation has been 

extended to three miles for consistency with the Casper and Kemmerer RMPs.

Comment: Page 2-114, Goals, Objectives, and Actions: We encourage the BLM to pursue National 

Historic Landmark status for the Trapper’s Point site. 

Response: This is an excellent idea and BLM agrees. Please note that in 2007 the site was formally 

nominated to and is now listed on the National Register. 

Comment: Page 2-115 (1)(i)(j) Management Objective and Actions “Surface occupancy or disturbance 

would be prohibited except for linear crossings within one-quarter mile of the Lander Trail.” “(j) Surface 

occupancy would be prohibited within 1 mile on either side of the Sublette Cutoff Trail.” Comment: This 

high level protection measure is excessive and unsupported. For protection from surface disturbance of 

the actual trail, “a 1⁄4 mile from the centerline or visual horizon, whichever is less,” restriction is more than 

appropriate. We urge that this language be revised to reflect that change.

Response: BLM disagrees with the suggested change. The past 20 years of experience has demonstrated 

that the NHTs setting cannot be adequately managed with the “1/4-mile buffer”. What this old buffer 

Pinedale RMP A27-119 
Appendix 27—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

resulted in was a 1/2-mile corridor flanked by intensive development reminiscent of a highway flanked by 

modern intrusions.

Comment: We are concerned that, unless BLM strengthens and adopts Alternative 3 in the Final EIS, it 

will permit oil and gas development to further impair the historic and cultural landscapes of the Upper 

Green River Valley.

Response: BLM has strived for balance in the RMP and is committed to complying with the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920, the National Energy Policy Act of 2005, and laws and policies requiring protection 

of historic and cultural landscapes. 

Comment: The following are things that I would like to see in the RMP: • Protect all historic and cultural 

sites from energy development

Response: In all alternatives, BLM does indeed protect significant sites from development or mitigate 

adverse effects that are proposed.

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-23: “Construction during winter (or during periods of winterlike 

conditions) in sensitive cultural resource areas (e.g., the San Arcacio soils of the Jonah gasfield, the 

Anticline, and the foothills/breaks of the Mesa; the eolian sediments of the Big Piney/La Barge oil and 

gas field) could affect cultural resources, because it is virtually impossible to conduct any meaningful or 

professional cultural resource investigations with frozen ground or with snow cover.” Recommendations: 

Provide sources or delete.

Response: This has been BLM’s experience over many years. Recently, construction was terminated at a 

well pad when important archeological features were discovered while the ground was frozen and the find 

could not be evaluated. It should be obvious that an archeologist cannot conduct surface inventory with 

100% snow cover. No deletion will be made.

Comment: Page 2-114, Goals, Objectives, and Actions: We encourage the BLM to pursue National 

Historic Landmark status for the Trapper’s Point site. 

Response: This is an excellent idea and BLM agrees. Please note that in 2007 the site was formally 

nominated to and is now listed on the National Register.

Comment: Page 3-18, Jonah/Pinedale Anticline/La Barge Oil and Gas Fields: The statement that, “The 

BLM is working with industry officials to develop a program in which the industry will sponsor data 

recovery excavations at the pace of one site for each well they develop in the area” is not accurate. Please 

revise to state management of cultural resources within the Jonah Field will occur in accordance with the 

programmatic agreement for this field.

Response: This statement in the draft EIS was incorrect. The cultural section of the final EIS has been 

corrected. BLM does have a Programmatic Agreement with operators in the Jonah Gas Field that will 

allow for the excavation of two to three sites per year at the discretion of the archeologists. However there 

are no plans to have a site excavated for every well pad developed. 

Comment: Page 3-21: The decision to allow the cabins to deteriorate in the Scab Creek Wilderness Area 

must be made in consultation with the SHPO. These cabins need to be recorded and evaluated for 

National Register eligibility. If the cabins are determined to be eligible properties, the decision to allow 

deterioration may be considered an adverse effect per 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2)(vi). The BLM is required to 

consult with the SHPO and other consulting parties, if appropriate, to discuss ways to avoid, minimize, or 

A27-120 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cultural Resources 

mitigate the adverse effects of this decision as specified at 36 CFR 800.6(a). We request the BLM initiate 

consultation with us sometime this year on the management of these cabins.

Response: BLM’s Pinedale Field Office (PFO) was attempting to follow national wilderness guidelines 

for such cabins in wilderness study areas (WSAs). BLM notes that a few of the known cabins are 

recorded but not evaluated for National Register purposes, such as 48SU416. BLM concurs that 

recordation and evaluation are desirable, and it will coordinate with Wyoming Parks and Cultural 

Resources to prioritize this workload.

Comment: Page 4-240 Cultural Resources 4.19.4 “Oil and gas development would cause the greatest 

amount of cumulative effect to cultural resources from construction of well pads, roads, pipelines, and 

diverse ancillary facilities.” Comment: It must be recognized that the oil and gas industry is the single 

greatest contributor to BLM’s knowledge and understanding of cultural resources in the FO area. 

Moreover, oil and gas activities are lawful permitted uses and potential impacts to cultural resources must 

be mitigated. The claim industry creates the greatest amount of cumulative effect to cultural resources is 

overstated. We recommend replacing this statement with the language on page A2-4 where it is pointed 

out that industry works to practice “avoidance” first. “If avoidance is imprudent or infeasible, mitigation 

may include excavation...stabilization, monitoring, protection barriers and signs, or other physical and 

administrative measures.” Page 241 “Surface disturbing activities that occur in close proximity to 

sensitive Native American sites and some historic sites would potentially introduce visual intrusions to 

those sites where the setting contributes to the NRHP eligibility .... This has been the case, for example, 

along the Lander Trail in the Deer Hills area and in direct proximity to the “Piney Rock Art site” (private 

surface), where EOG Resources placed an oil well and pump jack whose grasshopper pump is run 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week by a noisy diesel motor. The cumulative impact is the direct introduction of 

visible, audible, and atmospheric elements that are out of character with the historic property.” Comment: 

We object to the paragraph cited above for a number of reasons. First, it is unwarranted to identify an 

operator in this document as being a bad operator simply because it has exercised its lease rights. Second, 

BLM must recognize that it does not have jurisdiction over State lands. Clearly, the State of Wyoming 

determined that production from this oil well deserved priority status as opposed to setting it aside for 

cultural values.

Response: BLM recognizes that cultural resources inventory, evaluation, and mitigation in support of 

energy development has greatly increased the knowledge of the area’s prehistory; BLM has 

acknowledged this publicly in various newspaper formats, during public talks, and at local schools. 

However, the great amount of “unexpected discoveries” due to heavy equipment activity in the PFO 

clearly established that industrial development in the PFO has resulted in the greatest disturbance to 

cultural resources. The BLM also recognizes that illegal artifact collecting (not an industry-generated 

impact) has severely damaged the public cultural resources of the PFO. Indeed, BLM has worked most 

successfully with a number of operators for decades in managing important cultural resources and fully 

expects to do so in the future. The subject pump jack has created visual, audible, and atmospheric 

conditions that are out of character with the site setting. That is a factual, accurate statement. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-114 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add the following: Coordinate with 

local governments with respect to all cultural resource evaluations. EXPLANATION: DM calls for 

coordination with local governments. Cultural resources management in Wyoming has significant impacts 

on private lands and thus closer coordination than BLM is used to is necessary. 

Response: BLM does not concur with the recommended change. There is no federal law, policy, or 

regulation in place to do this. BLM does work closely with the Sublette County Historic Preservation 

Commission on National Register nominations and other matters affecting select cultural resources. BLM 

also works with both county museums in areas of mutual interest. The PFO conducts about 1,200 cultural 

Pinedale RMP A27-121 
Appendix 27—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

resource evaluations annually and to expand the consultation would greatly slow down the permitting 

process, an action that runs against the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Comment: PAGE: 2-114 SECTION: 2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Objective 1 Protect NRHPeligible cultural sites and national historic trails consistent with the determinations regarding respective 

importance and sensitivity. EXPLANATION: DM 8130.14 requires a determination as to significance or 

sensitivity. 8130.14.A “In establishing management objectives, the relative importance and sensitivity of 

known and anticipated cultural properties should be considered, not simply their geographic distribution 

and density. Simple density is not necessarily a measure of the importance of cultural properties or the 

magnitude of potential conflicts. In establishing management objectives, the relative importance and 

sensitivity of known and anticipated cultural properties should be considered, not simply their geographic 

distribution and density. Simple density is not necessarily a measure of the importance of cultural 

properties or the magnitude of potential conflicts.” 

Response: The change is not needed. BLM routinely makes the determinations that are discussed, and 

current procedures are compliant with all applicable law, regulation, and policy. BLM has never used site 

density or geographic distribution as National Register determining factors.

Comment: PAGE: 2-114 SECTION: 2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise: a. Surface occupancy 

would be prohibited on selected communal big game kill sites (Trapper’s Point), Oregon Trail inscription 

sites, rock shelters, Native American burial locales, and Native American traditional cultural properties 

(TCP) if BLM determines that the site is important and is otherwise sensitive to the anticipated use. 

EXPLANATION: The action is prescriptive, not performance based. It is over broad since it prohibits 

surface use for all sites without regard to the proposed use. For instance, if surface use includes livestock 

grazing, then the RMP would prohibit grazing without regard to whether the site is sensitive to the 

proposed use. 

Response: Livestock grazing is not classified as “surface occupancy.” In order for BLM to fulfill its 

multiple-use mandate, it is required to balance resource protection with authorizing valid land use 

applications. Any conflicts are weighed on a case-by-case basis and if adverse effects are proposed, BLM 

implements the appropriate level of mitigation. BLM sees no need for this change to the document. BLM 

knows of virtually no impact upon the PFO grazing preference system over the last 50 years. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-114 SECTION: 2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise management actions to 

conform to limits found in DM 8130 and 8140 as follows: EXPLANATION: Management actions are 

subject to determinations as to the significance of the site and its sensitivity. In the context of specific 

actions or undertakings to implement the RMP objectives, DM 8140 also applies.

Response: The BLM PFO’s current management actions conform to extant BLM manuals and other 

guidance such as Instruction Memoranda (IMs), Information Bulletins (IBs), and supplementary policy. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-114 SECTION: 2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE a. Cultural resource 

management activity plans would be completed and implemented to identify, record, preserve, and protect 

[those](strikeout) archaeological and historic sites that are determined to be significant and sensitive. 

Activity plans would be prepared for any current or future sites listed in, or determined eligible for listing 

in, the NRHP. Site-specific management prescriptions, including data recovery if warranted, would be 

included in the activity plans. The level of protection would be in proportion to the significance of the 

site. EXPLANATION: DM 8130.14 protection limited based on relative importance and sensitivity. 

8140, Protecting Cultural Resources ¶8140_.06.C Level of protection must be proportionate to 

significance. C. The Field Office manager’s first choice shall be to avoid National Register listed and 

eligible properties that would otherwise be affected by a proposed land use, if it is reasonable and feasible 

A27-122 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cultural Resources 

to do so. In part, reasonableness is a measure of proportion and prudence. For example, avoidance would 

not represent reasonable balance and should not be chosen if the redesign or relocation efforts that would 

be incurred by the BLM or an authorized land user would be out of proportion to the cultural property’s 

evaluated significance, data potential, or preservation value. 

Response: The BLM PFO’s current management actions conform to extant BLM manuals and other 

guidance such as IMs, IBs, and supplementary policy. BLM developed the appropriate mitigation of 

potential adverse effects based upon the criteria outlined in law, regulation, policy, and our internal 

manuals as well as the Wyoming cultural resources Programmatic Agreement and the new Jonah 

Programmatic Agreement.

Comment: PAGE: 2-114 SECTION: 2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE b. Select NRHPeligible sites that are determined to be significant and sensitive would be monitored and mitigation 

developed to protect the sites [from inappropriate use, erosion, trampling, or other damage](strikeout) in 

proportion to their significance.. EXPLANATION: The change conforms to DM 8140 and avoids 

situations where range projects are denied on grounds of trampling while wild horse and large game 

continue the trampling. 

Response: The commenter has previously pointed out that there are no wild horses. It is appropriate to 

protect NRHP-eligible sites from damage. BLM sees no need to change the document. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-114 SECTION: 2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: g. If a proposed action would 

diminish the integrity of a an important and sensitive cultural property’s setting, and the integrity of the 

setting contributes to NRHP eligibility, appropriate mitigation would be applied (Appendices 1, 3, and 5). 

EXPLANATION: RMP action is over broad and does not conform to BLM guidance. 

Response: The BLM PFO’s current management actions conform to extant BLM manuals and other 

guidance such as IMs, IBs, and supplementary policy.

Comment: Page: 3-12, SECTION: 3.3.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add information regarding the 

cultural resource sites that are on private land. EXPLANATION: Several of the historic sites are not on 

public land, e.g. Cora Butte, Names Hill, Father DeSmet Monument, and Fort Bonneville 

Response: Names Hill is predominantly on State of Wyoming land. BLM shares Cora Butte with a 

landowner and Fort Bonneville is split between state land and private surface.

Comment: PAGE: 3.135, SECTION: 3.18.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise for accuracy: 

Several important cultural sites, including the Wardell Buffalo Trap (48SU301), are on private lands in 

the vicinity of Ross Butte. EXPLANATION: Cultural site, Wardell Buffalo Trap is located on private 

land, a fact that is incorrectly omitted from the FEIS.

Response: The assertion made in the comment is incorrect. The Wardell Site is on lands administered by 

the BLM PFO, including new and important archaeological additions to the 160 acres of the formal 

National Register boundary.

Comment: PAGE: 4-10, SECTION: 4.3.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise RMP and FEIS to 

conform to DM 8130.14 and DM 8140 as discussed below. EXPLANATION: Analysis omits 

fundamental distinctions made in BLM manuals for planning for cultural resources and for managing 

cultural resource impacts from undertakings. The RMP and DEIS incorrectly treat as equally significant 

all resources potentially listed on the NHP register. This contradicts explicit manual direction M- 8130.14 

also require BLM to consider feasibility, need, and balance with other multiple uses. DM 8130.14 

Pinedale RMP A27-123 
Appendix 27—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

requires a determination as to importance or sensitivity of the specific cultural resource. “In establishing 

management objectives, the relative importance and sensitivity of known and anticipated cultural 

properties should be considered, not simply their geographic distribution and density. Simple density is 

not necessarily a measure of the importance of cultural properties or the magnitude of potential conflicts. 

In establishing management objectives, the relative importance and sensitivity of known and anticipated 

cultural properties should be considered, not simply their geographic distribution and density. Simple 

density is not necessarily a measure of the importance of cultural properties or the magnitude of potential 

conflicts.” DM 8130.14.A. (Emphasis Added). DEIS §4.3.2 discusses undertakings, which are governed 

by DM 8140. The direction quoted above is expanded in DM 8140 to direct BLM to weigh and evaluate 

the need to protect resources, NHP eligibility is a minor factor. Commonly found resources merit less 

protection than those that are significant and sensitive. DM 8130.14 protection must be tied to relative 

importance and sensitivity. 8140, Protecting Cultural Resources ¶8140_.06.C Level of protection must be 

proportionate to significance. The Field Office manager’s first choice shall be to avoid National Register 

listed and eligible properties that would otherwise be affected by a proposed land use, if it is reasonable 

and feasible to do so. In part, reasonableness is a measure of proportion and prudence. For example, 

avoidance would not represent reasonable balance and should not be chosen if the redesign or relocation 

efforts that would be incurred by the BLM or an authorized land user would be out of proportion to the 

cultural property’s evaluated significance, data potential, or preservation value.

Response: The BLM PFO’s current management actions conform to extant BLM manuals and other 

guidance such as law, regulation, IMs, IBs, and supplementary policy.

Comment: PAGE: 4-12, SECTION: 4.3.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Trampling or wallowing by 

grazing animals (livestock, wildlife and wild horses) [Livestock trampling and wallowing could] 

(STRIKEOUT) may directly impact cultural artifacts and features on or just below the surface, by 

breaking or scattering these artifacts, although on the other hand, cattle trails and other heavily trampled 

and exposed areas would allow otherwise undetected cultural resources to be identified and recorded. 

[Livestock] (STRIKEOUT) Scratching and rubbing by livestock, wildlife, and wild horses would impact 

certain types of cultural properties, including historic and prehistoric structures and rock art sites. In most 

instances, these types of animal behaviors would result in minimal or localized impacts. There would be 

long-term impacts from grazing by livestock, wildlife, and wild horses from repeated trampling on 

cultural sites over time; for example, in established game trails, wild horse routes, stock driveways, along 

fence lines, on rock alignments, near water sources, and in sheltered or shaded areas (springs are 

especially sensitive, as these areas have a high potential for being prehistoric sites). [Range and wildlife 

improvement activities that include construction of structures visible on or above the surface, could 

directly affect the visual integrity of cultural properties deriving their significance from natural settings or 

from settings relatively devoid of modern intrusion.] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: DEIS shows 

significant bias by attributing trampling impacts to only livestock grazing when wildlife and wild horses 

have similar or with horses probably greater impacts. Livestock grazing animal movements are more 

regulated that either wildlife or wild horses. Concentrations in feedgrounds have much greater 

environmental impacts, which are entirely omitted from DEIS. The Local Governments find the concerns 

about visual impacts incongruous in light of the fact that several livestock sites, such as herder camps are 

treated as cultural resources and are subject to special visual protection. Range projects are not brightly 

colored and are designed to blend into the scenery. This sentence is inaccurate and speculative. It is better 

to delete or at least remove the bias by recognizing equal impacts from wildlife management structures.

Response: There are currently no authorized wild horses in the Pinedale planning area. 

The impact analysis in question analyzes impacts from livestock grazing on cultural resources. Therefore, 

including wildlife and wild horses as other contributors to the impact is not appropriate in this location of 

the impact analysis. Furthermore, the BLM grazing program involves the permitting of livestock grazing, 

A27-124 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cultural Resources 

whereas the wildlife program does not permit grazing by wild animals. Rather, the wildlife program 

serves to provide habitat to meet specified population objectives. The impact analysis can only analyze 

BLM actions.

Comment: PAGE: 4-14, SECTION: 4.3.3., RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Cultural resources eligible for 

the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C, where integrity of setting is a contributing factor to their eligibility 

(as well as Native American sacred or respected sites) would be protected by VRM Class [I and] 

(STRIKEOUT) Class II designations. Any cultural properties within a VRM Class II I area would benefit 

from the constraints on [prohibition of] (STRIKEOUT) surface disturbance. However, fewer cultural 

resources would be identified, documented, and recorded [in VRM Class I areas ] (STRIKEOUT) because 

of the limitations placed on development activities and the consequent reduction in the need for cultural 

resource inventories. EXPLANATION: BLM does not have authority to impose VRM Class I for cultural 

resource properties. Class I is limited to wilderness and by a long-expired IM to WSAs. VRM Class II 

does not prohibit surface disturbance or, if it does, then the EIS needs to fully disclose the impacts on all 

of the multiple uses.

Response: The text on page 4-14 of the draft EIS is not making any decision to designate VRM Class I 

management due to cultural resources. Rather, it is analyzing the impacts that could be expected for a few 

cultural resources that happen to fall within areas designated as VRM Class I for other reasons. 

Comment: PAGE: 4.23, SECTION: 4.3.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [Reducing and 

eliminating wildlife resource-driven timing limitations in this area could result in more soil disturbance 

and discovery and in possible damage to previously unrecorded sites. Construction during winter (or 

during periods of winterlike conditions) in sensitive cultural resource areas (e.g., the San Arcacio soils of 

the Jonah gasfield, the Anticline, and the foothills/breaks of the Mesa; the eolian sediments of the Big 

Piney/La Barge oil and gas field) could affect cultural resources, because it is virtually impossible to 

conduct any meaningful or professional cultural resource investigations with frozen ground or with snow 

cover.] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: These two statements are untrue. Surveys are conducted before 

construction in the warmer months.

Response: No strikeout is recommended. The BLM PFO is under considerable pressure to conduct yearround drilling and completion activities in areas that in the past have been closed due to wildlife 

restrictions. Thus, BLM is under increasing pressure to permit land disturbing activities in winter months, 

with snow cover, frozen ground, and conditions making cultural resource investigations impossible. The 

RMP is a disclosure document; BLM is disclosing this situation. 

Comment: PAGE: 4.23, SECTION: 4.3.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE or DELETE Cultural 

resources in Minimally Developed Areas may [would] (STRIKEOUT) be less protected than those in 

NSO or No Leasing areas, but these resources may [would] (STRIKEOUT) also be less directly 

threatened than those in the Intensively Developed Fields due to less surface disturbance. Outside of 

specific cultural resource sites that merit or warrant special stipulations, such as site-specific NSO areas, 

there would be wildcat drilling and exploration activities in Minimally Developed Areas, with new roads 

penetrating areas where access had previously been restricted (e.g., miles-long improved roads into areas 

where previously only two-track access existed). There could be indirect effects expected from this new 

access. Conversion of Minimally Developed Areas into Intensively Developed Fields would make the 

management of intact viewsheds and natural settings more difficult. The potential for unexpected 

discoveries is greater in Minimally Developed Areas because of the poor understanding of the dynamics 

of buried site potential and preservation in these largely unstudied areas. EXPLANATION: It is 

inaccurate to assume less or more protection, the manual guidance is the same, protect important and 

sensitive resources based on need and feasibility. The generality of the RMP implies that BLM has an 

obligation to protect all cultural resources to the same level. The manual guidelines make it clear that 

Pinedale RMP A27-125 
Appendix 27—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

BLM is not to give the same level of protection to all resources. It also assumes that cultural resource 

surveys would not be required to approve wild cat wells and that too is incorrect.

Response: BLM sees no need for change. The BLM PFO’s current management actions conform to 

extant BLM manuals and other guidance such as law, regulation, IMs, IBs, and supplementary policy. 

The various alternatives are designed to evaluate increased or decreased levels of development and 

disturbance and the commensurate increase or decrease of threats to cultural resources.

Comment: PAGE: 4.24, SECTION: 4.3.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: This is particularly true for the 

Trapper’s Point ACEC, the Oregon Trail areas, and other historical and archeological sites. 

EXPLANATION: Oregon Trail is historical not archeological.

Response: BLM is aware of this. That is why the phrase “historical and archeological” was chosen. Also 

note that sites such as the Sand Springs Emigrant Camp on the Lander Trail have both archeological and 

historic archeological components.

Comment: PAGE: 4.25, SECTION: 4.3.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Qualifier Those sites 

associated with Trapper’s Point but located on adjacent private land would not be protected.

Response: The final EIS has been updated to include this information.

Comment: PAGE: G-5 CHANGE: CULTURAL RESOURCE – [A fragile and 

nonrenewable](STRIKEOUT) Remnant of human activity, occupation, or endeavor reflected in districts, 

sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, works of art, architecture or natural features. 

EXPLANATION: BLM Manual 8100, Glossary definition of cultural resource contains no reference to 

“fragile and nonrenewable” language and its inclusion is contradicted by the very examples in the 

definition.

Response: No change is recommended. Cultural resources are nonrenewable and can be fragile, such as 

rock art sites, stone alignments, ceramic localities, and historic structures. The commenter is 

misunderstanding manual guidance and definitions.

Comment: : PAGE: G-6 CHANGE: CULTURAL RESOURCE SITE (cultural property)– A physical 

location of past human activities or events. Cultural properties are extremely variable in size, ranging 

from the location of a single cultural resource feature to a cluster if cultural resource structures with 

associated objects. Cultural resource properties that do not meet the new threshold in the cultural resource 

site definition adopted in 2005 (15 or more prehistoric associated artifacts within 30 meter diameter, 50 or 

more historic associated artifacts within 30 meter diameter) will not be recorded as sites for purposes of 

Section 106 consultation and entry into the Wyoming Cultural Resources Information System. BLM IM 

No. WY-2005-044. EXPLANATION: New site definition threshold requiring recordation of cultural 

resources was adopted by BLM in 2005 and should be referenced. BLM IM No. WY-2005-044 (cultural 

resources that fall below the threshold are recorded on a Wyoming Isolated Resource form).

Response: BLM is aware of these changes and has adopted them. All BLM policies do not have to be 

repeated in the RMP to be implemented. The BLM PFO’s current management actions conform to extant 

BLM manuals and other guidance such as laws, regulations, IMs, IBs, and supplementary policy. 

Comment: PAGE: G-20 CHANGE: RESOURCE DAMAGE – Long-term or permanent 

[d](STRIKEOUT)Damage to any natural or cultural resources that result in impacts such as erosion, 

water pollution, degradation of vegetation, loss of archeological resources, or the spread of weeds. 

A27-126 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cultural Resources 

EXPLANATION: Definitions needs to clarify that the term as commonly used by BLM refers to 

permanent or long-term damage, as most “impacts” to resources are reversible.

Response: Perhaps a semantic difference is obtained here. While impacts can be mitigated, it is hard to 

reverse damage to an historic site or structure. Destruction of an archeological site by bulldozing is not 

reversible, but it is mitigatable.

Comment: PAGE: G-23 CHANGE: TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTY (TCP) SITE - A 

cultural resource property that derives significance from traditional values associated with it [known to be 

perceived](STRIKEOUT) by a specified social and/or cultural group as important in maintaining the 

cultural identity, heritage, or well-being of the group. In the [RMPPA](STRIKEOUT) planning area, this 

mainly pertains to cultural sites that are sensitive to Native American tribes. A traditional cultural 

property may qualify for the National Register if it meets specific National Park Service criteria. 

EXPLANATION: The definition needs to be revised to conform to BLM TCP policy and National Park 

Service direction. BLM Manual 8100 (TC definition) and 8110.42(c) (allocations to traditional use 

category); 36 CFR 60.4 (criteria for evaluation); National Register Bulletin 38 (discussing traditional 

cultural properties).

Response: No change is required here. The BLM PFO’s current management actions conform to extant 

BLM manuals and other guidance such as laws, regulations, IMs, IBs, and supplementary policy. It also 

must be emphasized that ongoing Native American consultation fine tunes those sites, locales, and 

properties considered important or sacred to modern Native American groups. 

Comment: We are aware that existing leases have an effect on trails management. For any sections of 

historic trail corridor that have not yet been leased, appropriate strategies for protecting trail setting 

should be considered before a lease is issued. Inclusion of language reflecting the impacts of leasing on 

trails management would be a meaningful addition to the Pinedale RMP.

Response: BLM agrees with this comment and will strive to further protect the NHTs and their 

viewsheds on BLM-administered lands and above federal minerals.

Comment: While we prefer the management plan laid out in Alternative Three, we believe it needs 

improvements to truly reflect your multiple use mandate and to provide the necessary protection for the 

significant cultural resources under your control. Therefore, we would urge you to adopt the following 

additional safeguards to Alternative Three: Enforce seasonal drilling stipulations so that unintentional 

damage to cultural resources due to an inability to do surveys during the winter months does not occur;

Response: The Alliance’s point concerning the inability to conduct cultural resource investigations in 

winter time due to snow cover and frozen ground is well taken and BLM shares your concern. See the 

BMPs in Appendix 5 of the draft EIS for winter restrictions on such activities. 

Comment: While we prefer the management plan laid out in Alternative Three, we believe it needs 

improvements to truly reflect your multiple use mandate and to provide the necessary protection for the 

significant cultural resources under your control. Therefore, we would urge you to adopt the following 

additional safeguards to Alternative Three: Withdraw future oil and gas leases from important cultural 

resource areas such as the Trapper’s Point and New Fork Potholes region;

Response: The Trapper’s Point and New Fork Potholes areas are proposed in the draft EIS Preferred 

Alternative for area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) status and to be unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing. 

Pinedale RMP A27-127 
Appendix 27—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

Comment: Section 3.3.2 cultural resource subregion indicates the Jonah subregion also contains an 

extensive archaeological district characterized by a unique concentration of late prehistoric. Material and 

it appears to have good potential to contain intact Paleo-Indian components. While this statement 

indicates their presence. There is no plan of action that outlines what happens when these archeological 

and pre-historic items are encountered at one of the sites. The EIS should address and what are the 

protocol procedures and plan of action that will be implemented to preserve and glean this information 

from these sites when they are encountered. This would also go for any prehistoric archaeological sites 

prehistoric native Indian burial sites rock art sites etc.

Response: You make good points here, thank you. In May of 2007, BLM, EnCana, BP/America, the 

Wyoming SHPO, and the Shoshone Tribe signed a Programmatic Agreement for cultural resource 

management in the entire Jonah Gas Field. This Programmatic Agreement contains a Research Design 

and Cultural Resources Management Plan that outline the strategies brought forward in your request, and 

BLM can make the Programmatic Agreement and its appendices available to you. Native American 

human remains located on BLM-administered land will be managed in accordance with the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and its implementing regulations. All rock art sites in 

the Pinedale Field Office are managed on a case-by-case basis, but carefully, because many lie in active 

oil and gas fields. Their location is proprietary. 

Comment: Page Number & Issue: 2-6, 2.3.1: “Special requirements to alleviate air quality impacts would 

be included on a case-by-case basis in use authorizations (including lease stipulations) within the scope of 

BLM’s authority.” Recommendations: Defer to WDEQ’s primary jurisdiction on this issue. 

Response: Use of the phrase “within the scope of BLM’s authority” provides for this.

Comment: In too many instances, BLM worries about economic impacts to operators and states various 

impacts to operator activities in the event that certain restrictions regarding wildlife protection are 

implemented. Section 4.7.1 contains a statement that emission mitigation would be required under all 

alternatives based upon use of best available rig technologies which would reduce rig emissions. This is a 

red herring argument because there are no stipulations that will force use of, and more importantly, 

advancement of such technologies. Absent a requirement, such usage is left to the discretion of the 

operators who will opt out for as long as possible. 

Response: It is reasonable to reveal impacts to operators, as well as other potential impacts of RMP 

actions. Specific requirements for the development of individual gas fields would be determined in the 

project EIS and ROD, such as the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline EIS and ROD. BLM would require 

mitigation of air emissions in these documents to the extent of its authority. 

Comment: Appendix 19 A19-26 Table A19-9 WDEQ-AQD There is adequate data from the Pinedale 

area. It is not necessary to use Yellowstone, which is far removed from the RMP area. Yellowstone 

should be removed from the text and figures. 

Response: BLM includes air quality monitoring data located within the potentially affected environment, 

as required by NEPA. 

Comment: The BLM Must Acknowledge and Address the Existing and Predicted Air Pollution Impacts 

in the Pinedale RMP Area The “Applicability to the Pinedale Area” section of the draft RMP states that, 

The analysis of the proposed alternatives must demonstrate continued compliance with all applicable 

local, state, tribal, and federal air quality standards. Existing air quality throughout the planning area is in 

compliance with all ambient air quality standards, as demonstrated by the relatively low concentration 

levels presented in Table A19-3.9. Contrary to this language, the Pinedale area is already experiencing 

A27-128 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cultural Resources 

visibility impairment and is likely out of compliance with PSD increments, as shown in analyses 

conducted for previous EISs in the area. In addition, the 8-hour ozone standard has recently been 

exceeded in the area and the BLM’s draft EIS/RMP allows for growth in fine particle emissions that are 

cause for concern regarding future compliance with the fine particle standard. For the BLM to act as if 

none of these issues exist in this DEIS/RMP is a huge falsehood, misleading and even extremely 

shortsighted when one considers the impacts of these issues to human health and the environment. These 

issues must be dealt with in this resource management plan, which is supposed to plan for overall air 

quality compliance in the Pinedale planning area. Specifically, the BLM must acknowledge and address 

the areas of concern described below. 

Response: BLM will continue to comply with all air quality laws, rules, and regulations. WDEQ PSD 

guidance states that the Pinedale area is in compliance with the PSD increment for NO2. Whether (or 

not) modeling is conducted for a RMP is decided on a case-by-case basis. An RMP is not a PSD 

increment analysis. 

Comment: Ozone Exceedances Near Oil and Gas Fields Point to a Worsening Problem- Recent 

exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard in southwest Wyoming show a worsening air quality problem 

despite the controls already in place for emissions from oil and gas development. Four exceedances of the 

8-hour ozone standard occurred during February of 2005 and 2006 at the Jonah and Boulder monitoring 

sites, where NOX emissions from oil and gas operations were the likely cause of these high values. EPA’s 

July 6, 2006 letter to DEQ explains that high NOX levels were present during the days on which these 

exceedances occurred. Because this area is largely lightly populated, with relatively low on-road mobile 

source emissions, oil and gas operations were likely a major contributor to this problem. The fact that the 

oil and gas development in Wyoming is taking place in lightly populated areas does not lessen the 

importance of protecting the air quality for those people who live there, most importantly for sensitive 

populations, including children, the elderly and those with respiratory conditions. Exposure to ozone is a 

serious concern as it can cause or exacerbate respiratory health problems, including shortness of breath, 

asthma, chest pain and coughing, decreased lung function and even long-term lung damage.10 Tables in 

Chapter 3 of the DEIS/RMP and the Air Quality Technical Support Document (TSD) acknowledge that 

the Pinedale area is already seeing concentrations that are 97% of the 8-hour ozone standard. And, in fact, 

the monitoring site that is 3 miles west of Boulder, Wyoming in the planning area saw 8-hour average 

ozone concentrations in 2005 9 BLM, DEIS/RMP, Appendix 19, A19-7. 10 See EPA’s National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Particulates and Ozone, 62 FR 38,856 (July 18, 1997). that were 99% of the 

standard. 

Response: High levels of ozone were measured (> NAAQS) during the winters of 2005 and 2006. This is 

technically not an exceedance. 

Comment: The BLM is proposing to allow NOx emissions and VOC emissions in the planning area to 

increase by 200% and 275%, respectively, between the base year (2001) and 2021. See Table A19-11, 

Alternative 4 (preferred alternative). Even considering the fact that we don’t know the resultant impacts 

that could occur as a result of this increase in emissions without completing a dispersion modeling 

analysis, any increase in emissions of ozone precursors is almost certain to threaten the area’s compliance 

with the ozone standard. 

Response: BLM is analyzing impacts that might occur in the future if existing and future oil and gas 

leases are developed. BLM does not “propose” to increase emissions. NEPA does not require a 

quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, EPA, USFS, NPS, and BLM) 

worked collaboratively with the BLM on the analysis methodology. 

Pinedale RMP A27-129 
Appendix 27—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

Comment: The BLM must establish strict and enforceable mitigation measures that essentially do not 

allow for any growth in NOx and VOC emissions in the area in order to avoid violations of the ozone 

NAAQS. In order to fulfill its responsibility to provide for compliance with the ozone standard in this 

DEIS/RMP, the BLM must ensure that this value does not increase further and instead make a plan within 

this DEIS/RMP to decrease ozone levels. Due to increasingly high ozone levels in the area, the 

Farmington, New Mexico RMP developed a strategy in which the BLM joined with other air quality 

control agencies in the area to create the Four Corners Ozone Task Force. The goal of this task force is to 

develop a plan that would prevent ozone levels from violating the standard.12 The BLM must also be 

proactive in the case of Pinedale and should join with the WDEQ and key stakeholders in order to prevent 

ozone violations here as well. 

Response: The BLM believes that we have rigorously explored the alternatives given the level of 

information that was available. We have taken the initiative to evaluate cumulative BLM activities on a 

larger scale. We quantify impacts for site-specific projects where data on specific activities are known. 

Comment: Ongoing Development is Predicted to Cause Significant Deterioration of Air Quality in the 

Area-- The draft EIS/RMP includes problematic language explaining that, “Comparisons of potential 

PM10, NO2, and SO2 concentrations in NEPA air quality analyses with PSD concentrations are intended 

only to evaluate a threshold of concern and do not represent a regulatory PSD Increment Consumption 

analysis,” (Appendix 19, A19-6). The BLM must consider the PSD increments as important and legally 

binding Clean Air Act requirements. The PSD increments are separate ambient air quality standards not to 

be exceeded, as set out in §163 of the Clean Air Act, that apply in addition to the national ambient air 

quality standards in clean air areas. The BLM is required under FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(8), to 

“provide for compliance with” all Clean Air Act requirements, and thus the BLM cannot authorize an 

action that would allow the PSD increments to be exceeded. (See also 43 C.F.R. § 2920.7(b)(3) (requiring 

the same for land use authorizations.) In the past, the BLM has also indicated that the predicted PSD 

increment violations in EIS documents should not be considered as real increment violations because they 

are modeled. However, since only emissions from major stationary sources which commenced 

construction or modification after the applicable “major source baseline 11. 

Response: BLM will continue to comply with all air quality laws, rules, and regulations. WDEQ PSD 

guidance states that the Pinedale area is in compliance with the PSD increment for NO2. Whether (or 

not) modeling is conducted for a RMP is decided on a case-by-case basis. An RMP is not a PSD 

increment analysis. 

Comment: The 4th max 8-hr ozone concentration at the Boulder site (ID 560350099) in 2005 was 0.079 

ppm, or 158 ìg/m3. This is 99% of the 8-hr ozone standard of 160 ìg/m3. The BLM used a background 

concentration for the DRMP based on 2005 data from the Jonah Infill development area (40 mi NW of 

Farson). That monitor had a 4th max 8-hr average in 2005 of 0.076 ppm, or 152 ìg/m3, which is 97% of 

the 8-hr ozone standard. http://www.epa.gov/air/data/reports.html See 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/ozonetf/. 6 date” and emissions increases from minor, area and mobile 

sources that occurred after the relevant “minor source baseline date” affect the allowable increment, an air 

quality monitor cannot distinguish between pollutant concentrations from sources that are part of the 

baseline and those from sources that consume increment. 

Response: The BLM relied on the state for the data. The WDEQ provided the BLM with the air quality 

monitoring data. Some of the data are dated but reflect the state’s opinion of the best available data to 

characterize the background. 

Comment: Therefore, it is impossible to use monitoring data to establish compliance with the PSD 

increments; the only way to determine compliance is to complete a modeling analysis. Modeled violations 

A27-130 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cultural Resources 

of the legally mandatory PSD increments were predicted in both the Jonah Infill and the Pinedale 

Anticline DSEIS documents. As mentioned above, FLPMA and related regulations specify that all CAA 

requirements be met in the development of land use plans. The BLM is required to “provide for 

compliance with” all CAA requirements, and cannot authorize an action that would violate the PSD 

increments, which are a CAA requirement under Section 163. A complete PSD increment analysis is an 

important component for this DEIS/RMP. Both the Jonah Infill and Pinedale Anticline EIS analyses 

showed NO2 and PM10 increment violations under most of the modeling scenarios for most alternatives. 

Additionally, these impacts were likely underpredicted due to flaws in the emission inventories. This draft 

EIS/RMP should acknowledge the increment violations that were already modeled in the past EIS 

documents and make a plan for the reversal of this disturbing trend in worsening air quality, particularly 

since the RMP would authorize considerable oil and gas development, the primary cause of NO2 

increment consumption identified in the Wyoming DEQ increment consumption analysis for 

southwestern Wyoming. The increment violations predicted in the Jonah and Pinedale EISs are even more 

disturbing considering that in 2005, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WYDEQ) 

released a report on NO2 increment consumption in Sublette County, Wyoming.14 This analysis 

indicated that a maximum of anywhere from 11.16 ìg/m3 to 12.23 ìg/m3 of NO2 increment was already 

consumed in Sublette County (Table SR-12 of WYDEQ NO2 Increment Report), and the maximum NO2 

increment consumption was found to occur in the Jonah Pinedale Development Area (see pages SR-19 

and SR-22). Adding this analysis to the additional increment consumption resulting from the increased 

development already underway in the Jonah Infill and the predicted impacts from the Pinedale Anticline 

project, the NO2 increment in Sublette County will be violated. 

Response: BLM will continue to comply with all air quality laws, rules, and regulations. WDEQ PSD 

guidance states that the Pinedale area is in compliance with the PSD increment for NO2. Whether (or 

not) modeling is conducted for a RMP is decided on a case-by-case basis. An RMP is not a PSD 

increment analysis. 

Comment: The major source baseline dates are January 6, 1975 for SO2 and PM10 and February 8, 1988 

for NO2. 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i). The minor source baseline dates in Wyoming differ by pollutant and 

were triggered on the date that a complete PSD permit application was received by the WYDEQ, e.g., the 

minor source baseline date for NOx was triggered on February 26, 1988. See definitions of “major source 

baseline date” and “minor source baseline date” in the Wyoming PSD rules. 14 Summary Report, 

Southwest Wyoming NO2 PSD Increment Consumption Modeling: Results for Sublette County, 

September 15, 2005 (WYDEQ NO2 Increment Report). 

Response: The BLM relied on the state for the data. The air quality monitoring data were provided to the 

BLM by the state WDEQ. Some data are dated but reflect the state’s opinion of the best available data to 

characterize the background. 

Comment: The BLM must revise its air quality management objectives in Section 2.3.1 and must 

significantly modify its air quality management goals and objectives under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The 

BLM's proposed Management Goal, which is identical under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, is to "Minimize the 

impact of management actions in the planning area on air quality by complying with all applicable air 

quality laws, rules, and regulations. Implement management actions in the planning area to improve air 

quality as practicable." See RMP DEIS, pgs. 2-50, 2-75 - 76, 2-113 - 114. Because the BLM cannot 

regulate air emissions, this goal is inappropriate. At a minimum, the BLM should more carefully define 

its lack of authority with respect to air quality "management actions." The BLM cannot attempt to impose 

air emission regulations through its normal management responsibilities. Further, even assuming the 

BLM had the authority to regulate air quality or emissions, the Management Goal is poorly worded and 

could lead to increased litigation. Opponents to natural gas development could, and likely would, suggest 

the above Management Goal prevents the BLM from authorizing any actions that may lead to increased 

Pinedale RMP A27-131 
Appendix 27—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

emissions within the planning area. Opponents to natural gas development have used similarly phrased 

language in the Pinedale RMP and Buffalo RMP to suggest not only that BLM has authority over air 

quality, but that the BLM cannot authorize actions which may impact air quality. The BLM must revise 

its Management Goal under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 to state that BLM's only management goal, objective, 

or action will be to ensure that the WDEQ is invited to participate in the NEPA process as part of the 

State of Wyoming's cooperating agency status. In the event the BLM unwisely retains the potentially 

illegal objectives contained in the RMP DEIS, the BLM must include clear language in the RMP 

disavowing any attempt by BLM to regulate air emissions or air quality in the planning area. 

Response: The BLM disagrees. The air quality management objectives are correctly stated. BLM will 

continue to comply with all air quality laws, rules, and regulations. The WDEQ has the regulatory 

responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in Wyoming. BLM has the land 

management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, such as significance criteria 

and levels of concern. 

Comment: The BLM must revise, or delete entirely, its Management Objectives under each of the above 

alternatives because they are entirely beyond the BLM's authority. For example, the BLM's first 

Management Objective is to "Maintain concentrations of criteria pollutants associated with management 

action in compliance with applicable state and federal Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS)." See 

RMP DEIS, pgs. 2-50, 2-75, 2-113. Both the BLM and the IBLA have recognized that the WDEQ, with 

oversight from the EPA, has the authority to enforce AAQS in Wyoming. Similarly, despite the fact only 

the WDEQ has the authority to enforce Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments in 

Wyoming, BLM's second Management Objective is to "Maintain concentrations of pollutants associated 

with management actions in compliance with the applicable Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) increment." See RMP DEIS, pgs. 2-50, 2-75, 2-113. Proposed Objective 3 even more 

inappropriately suggests it is BLM's responsibility to "reduce visibility-impairing pollutants ... in 

accordance with the State of Wyoming's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)." See RMP 

DEIS, pgs. 2-50, 2-75, 2-113. Opponents to development may suggest these Management Objectives 

prohibit the BLM from authorizing any actions which may increase emissions or have potential visibility 

impacts in the planning area. The BLM must delete all four of its inappropriate Management Objectives 

under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

Response: The BLM disagrees. The air quality management objectives are correctly stated. BLM will 

continue to comply with all air quality laws, rules, and regulations. The WDEQ has the regulatory 

responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in Wyoming. BLM has the land 

management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, such as significance criteria 

and levels of concern. 

Comment: The BLM must also delete Management Action c. under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 which would 

authorize the BLM to impose special requirements, including lease stipulations, to eliminate emissions. 

As noted above, the BLM does not have the authority to regulate emissions in Wyoming and could not 

directly, or indirectly through lease stipulations, regulate air quality or emissions. The BLM must delete 

this unlawful "Action."

Response: The BLM disagrees. The air quality management objectives are correctly stated. BLM will 

continue to comply with all air quality laws, rules, and regulations. The WDEQ has the regulatory 

responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in Wyoming. BLM has the land 

management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, such as significance criteria 

and levels of concern.

A27-132 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cultural Resources 

Comment: Item: Page A19-31, Table A19-16, Mitigation Options. Comment: Several of the potential 

mitigation options presented in Table A19-16 require comments. 1) Installation of SCR on compressor 

engines. 

In the proposed standards for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, EPA states the 

following with respect to the installation of SCR on natural gas fired engines: “For SI lean burn engines, 

EPA considered SCR. The technology is effective in reducing NOx emissions as well as other pollutant 

emissions, if an oxidation catalyst is included. However, the technology has not been widely applied to 

stationary SI engines and has mostly been used with diesel engines and larger applications thousands of 

HP in size. This technology requires a significant understanding of its operation and maintenance 

requirements and is not a simple process to manage. Installation can be complex and requires 

experienced operators. Costs of SCR are high, and have been rejected by States for this reason. EPA 

does not believe that SCR is a reasonable option for stationary SI lean burn engines ”. Consequently, this 

technology is not readily applicable to unattended oil and gas operation that do not have electricity. 

There is very little information in the literature regarding the incremental NOx emission reduction of SCR 

beyond lean burn technology. This is because there have been very limited installations of this technology 

for oil and gas compressor engines. Table 1 presents a summary of incremental SCR emission reductions 

and cost effective control estimates for SCR on a lean burn engine. 

Response: The data in the table were developed in concert with EPA. The measures were intended to 

provide a list of potential mitigation options that could be considered. BLM will consider adding or 

amending mitigation measures as better information becomes available. 

Comment: F-7 Fig 3-11 Why wasn’t the data from the Jonah site (Table 3-1) included on this plot?

Response: The best available meteorological and ambient air quality data were used for this analysis. 

Currently available Jonah data are not complete for 2006.

Comment: F-16 Fig 3-29 & 30 The FS prefers you not use the red and green lines from the Fox 

document. See comment 16 above. 

Response: Figures 3-29 and 3-30 have been updated in the final EIS. 

Comment: F-24 Fig 4-1 What are the units on this graph?

Response: The units on the Y axis of Figure 4-1 are “emissions tons per year”. This has been updated in 

the final EIS. 

Comment: A19-1 Ambient Air Quality Constituents You might also mention that the analysis does not 

look at VOCs that are ozone pre-cursers.

Response: VOCs are mentioned in the ozone bullet under the section Ambient Air Quality Constituents. 

VOCs have been taken into account and are calculated in Tables A19-6, A19-7, A19-8, and A19-11 in 

Appendix 19. 

Comment: A19-6 Last paragraph Here you discuss visibility in SVR, yet elsewhere it is discussed in 

terms of DV. It might be good to choose one or describe both.

Response: An explanation of deciview has been included in Appendix 19 of the final EIS. 

Pinedale RMP A27-133 
Appendix 27—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

Comment: A19-9 Forest Service There is a 4th Class I wilderness area in close proximity, the Teton 

Wilderness area, please add this to your text.

Response: Teton Wilderness Area has been included in Appendix 19 of the final EIS.

Comment: A19-20 Existing Air Quality Here you say that ozone is close to the Standard, but fail to 

mention that SO2 is at 100% of the standard according to Table A19-3. Also, in Table A19-3 PM2.5 and 

SO2 were never measured at the Jonah site, please validate your data sources. This table is repeated 3 

times. 

Response: Table A19-3 has been revised and updated in the final EIS. 

Comment: A19-14 Air Quality Impact Assessment, 1st paragraph, last sentence Where are the 

assumptions that were made documented?

Response: Assumptions for the air quality impact assessment are listed in Section 4.2, which includes a 

description of the assumptions for analysis, as well as methods of analysis. Also, see Appendix 19 for 

emission assumptions. 

Comment: A19-16 5th bullet What is meant by “induced or secondary growth related to increases in 

VMT”? Could you give an example? 

Response: An example of induced or secondary growth would be the increase in vehicle miles traveled 

due to general population increase in the area, not directly related to BLM activity but perhaps indirectly 

related (i.e., more gas field jobs translating to higher local population). 

Comment: A19-26 Table A19-9, Sulfur compounds This is in conflict with Table A19-3 which says SO2 

is 100% of standards.

Response: The data for SO2 in Table A19-3 was incorrect in the draft EIS. This table has been revised 

and updated in the final EIS. 

Comment: Page Number & Issue: Appendix A, A-19, A-29. Recommendations: The air analysis should 

reflect current and monitored data, state BACT for oil and gas facilities, and federal regulations. 

Response: Extensive air quality monitoring has been and is currently being conducted in the Upper Green 

River basin beginning in 2005. Much of this data are still not readily available as they are undergoing a 

thorough quality assurance/quality control process by WDEQ. A base case (year 2001), a short term (year 

2011) and a long term (2018) emissions inventory is presented in Appendix 19 of the draft and final EIS. 

The results of the impact analysis are also presented in Appendix 19. Chapter 3 of the draft and final EIS 

presents background and current air quality data, including criteria pollutants, HAP’s, visibility, 

atmospheric deposition (wet and dry) and a summary of existing air quality. Chapter 2 of the final EIS 

presents existing and potential future agreements with other state and federal agencies and air quality 

management under each alternative. Chapter 3, Section 3.2.6 presents a brief discussion of cooperative 

agreements between the BLM and other state and federal agencies. 

Comment: Even in the discussion of air quality impacts (DEIS pages 4-5 through 4-8) no estimate is 

given for how much NOx and SO2 would be emitted from projected oil and gas development with in the 

PRA under the. life of the new RMP. Nor is there any information given for how much other acid or acidproducing chemicals are currently being emitted - or are projected to be emitted in the future from 

drilling, completion and production operations (e.g., HC1 emitted from evaporation of completion fluids). 

A27-134 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cultural Resources 

Without this information it is impossible for the reader and decision-maker to gauge the significance of 

potential impacts to surface waters from air pollution deposition.

Response: Estimates of potential NOx and SO2 impacts are provided in Chapter 4, Section 4.19.3 of the 

draft and final EIS. Included in this section are estimates of potential wet and dry deposition of acidic 

species (i.e., all nitrogen and sulfur species). Also see Figures 3-15 to 3-30 of the draft EIS, which present 

data for nitrogen and sulfur deposition and local lake chemistry. 

Trapper’s Point and Lander Trail 

Comment: That further consideration be given to “Rural Historic Landscape” status for the Trapper’s 

Point/Green River Rendezvous/Fort Bonneville area; That further analysis be given to the potential 

economic impacts of cultural tourism in the area; That development be paced so that new major gas fields 

are not allowed until development in the existing and expanded fields has been completed; That seasonal 

drilling stipulations be enforced to protect cultural resources from inadvertent disturbance during the 

winter months; That future oil and gas leasing be withdrawn in important cultural areas such as the 

Trapper’s Point and New Fork Potholes region; That new infrastructure be clustered and directional 

drilling be mandated to minimize industry’s footprint; That the loopholes which could allow areas 

designated for minimal development to become intensively developed and which could allow surface 

drilling in No Surface Occupancy areas be closed; and, That the cleanest technologies and best 

environmentally protective practices be employed.

Response: BLM feels that the proposed ACEC for nearly 4,000 acres of the Trapper’s Point area is a 

good first step, which includes no leasing in this ACEC. BLM is considering National Historic Landmark 

(NHL) status for the Trapper’s Point site, as well. Unfortunately, all of the Green River Rendezvous NHL 

is privately owned and subdivided by Ron Sapol some years ago. Fort Bonneville is half owned by the 

State of Wyoming and half by a private rancher. BLM intends to restrict construction in archeologically 

sensitive areas during the winter when snow cover and frozen ground preclude conducting normal cultural 

resources investigations. Tourism is an important part of the region’s economy, and historically tourism 

has maintained the sustainability of this region’s economy during energy busts. Oil and gas leaseholders 

have rights BLM is bound to honor. BLM does not have the authority to prohibit drilling in areas where 

valid leases exist. Site-specific drilling and development requirements and BMPs must be developed and 

applied on a site-specific basis. The BMPs outlined in the draft EIS, and new ones that may be developed, 

would be applied, as practical, to new developments. It is necessary to provide for access to existing valid 

leases and for drainage situations that could occur should those existing leases be developed. The 

language describing how the unavailable and No Surface Occupancy (NSO) areas could be developed, 

and how areas could be converted to intensive fields has been refined in the final EIS. 

Comment: In addition to a Rural Historic Landscape designation around Trapper’s Point, this 

designation could also be appropriate for areas along the Lander Trail. While the areas of the trail nearest 

the Anticline have had their integrity compromised, other areas of the historic trails - including the Big 

Piney/Lander segment west of Marbleton and the Buckskin Crossing area - continue to possess 

characteristics that make them worthy of consideration as RHLs.

Response: You are correct. The Lander Trail from Buckskin Crossing to U.S. Highway 191 and the 

Sublette Cutoff might qualify as rural historic landscapes. BLM will pursue these locales; the other 

locales you mention do not appear to possess cultural resource values that lend themselves to Rural 

Historic Landscape designation.

Comment: We are also gratified to see that Alternative Three would establish SRMAs for the Green and 

New Fork Rivers as well as new ACECs for Trapper’s Point, New Fork Potholes, the Upper Green River, 

Ross Butte and the CCC Ponds. The establishment of new management areas for the Wind River Front 

Pinedale RMP A27-135 
Appendix 27—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

and Miller Mountain would also be beneficial. Nevertheless, we would continue to encourage you to look 

into seeking Rural Historic Landscape designation for the above-cited areas.

Response: ACEC designation for the 4,000 acres of the Trapper’s Point area is a good start. BLM has 

been encouraged to consider NHL status for this area, and BLM feels there is merit in this 

recommendation as well. Also, the Lander Trail from Buckskin Crossing to U.S. Highway 191 might 

qualify. BLM will pursue these locales; however, the other locales you mention do not appear to possess 

cultural resource values that lend themselves to Rural Historic Landscape designation.

Comment: We support your proposed stipulations in the preferred alternative that call for no surface 

occupancy at emigrant inscription sites; prohibition of oil and gas leasing within one mile of the Sublette 

Cutoff; and designation of trail setting as VRM Class II as opposed to Class III. These are positive steps 

toward the protection of important trail resources. W. also support your ongoing program of condition 

assessment for the Buckskin Crossing to Sand Springs Emigrant Camp and Sand Springs to Muddy Creek 

segments of the emigrant trails. 

However, we are concerned that the proposed quarter-mile “buffer” on contributing segments of the 

Lander Road and Sublette Cutoff may be inadequate, based on the visible results of this approach at some 

trail locations across Wyoming. The importance of setting along the trail corridor should not be ignored. 

In some places, visitors experience the historic trail corridor as a “hallway” through dense developments 

of well pads and related structures. Page 3-20 of your draft RMP makes essentially the same observation. 

The quarter-mile buffer may be suitable in places where nearby topography obscures development from 

view of the trail, but we ask that you consider stronger protection for the remaining contributing segments 

of National Historic Trail under your management. 

Response: Generally, BLM agrees with NPS’s observations. That is why the Lander Trail from Buckskin 

Crossing to U.S. Highway 191 is proposed as an “Unavailable for Leasing” area to protect the viewshed 

and setting in this area. BLM is also extending the 2-mile visibility study area to 3 miles on either side of 

the NHTs to further protect the viewshed. Similarly, BLM has attempted to protect the viewshed along 

the Sublette Cutoff and the nationally significant historic inscriptions located on BLM-administered 

surface and/or minerals in this area. BLM also recognizes that it has the option to extend 

viewshed/settings studies beyond 3 miles if a project or proposal warrants. BLM will continue to strive 

for greater protection of the NHTs in its jurisdiction. 

Comment: Clearly, several landscapes near Pinedale would fit well within this category (Rural Historic 

Landscape). We would be especially interested in seeing such a designation for the lands associated with 

the fur trade, including the Trapper’s Point/DeSmet monument/Fort Bonneville/rendezvous areas. Such a 

designation would afford the Pinedale BLM a wonderful opportunity to examine and interpret the fur 

trade era in line with modern scholarship on the subject. While, in the past, histories of the fur trade era 

have concentrated most heavily on the business of the white men’s fur trade adventures, recent 

scholarship has focused much more intensely on the interesting cross-cultural aspects of the trade. “Fur 

trade society,” a concept rarely considered or discussed in the early and mid-twentieth century is now a 

common subject of study. It is hard to imagine a landscape more fitting than that under the Pinedale 

BLM’s jurisdiction for examining, interpreting, and understanding this fascinating culture.

Response: The DeSmet Monument and site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Fort 

Bonneville (on State of Wyoming and private land) is also listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places. BLM is proposing the Trapper’s Point region as an ACEC, and in this designation BLM sees an 

opportunity to further pursue Landscape status for the area, which is rich in prehistoric and historic 

cultural resources. BLM’s staff archeologists have written two reports on the fur trade sites of the region 

A27-136 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cultural Resources 

and work closely with the Museum of the Mountain Man on several projects, thus BLM shares the 

Alliance’s interest and excitement in this important aspect of American history. 

Request for Additional Protection of Sites 

Comment: Unfortunately, this history of cross-cultural cooperation has been largely forgotten and that 

forgetting has allowed us to misunderstand much about the later conflicts between the Indians and whites. 

The Pinedale BLM office has a tremendous opportunity to restore some of this lost history by providing 

insightful and important interpretation of this era.

Response: The DeSmet Monument and site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Fort 

Bonneville (on State of Wyoming and private land) is also listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places. BLM is proposing the Trapper’s Point region as an ACEC, and in this designation the BLM sees 

an opportunity to further pursue Landscape status for the area, which is rich in prehistoric and historic 

cultural resources. BLM’s staff archeologists have written two reports on the fur trade sites of the region 

and work closely with the Museum of the Mountain Man on several projects, thus BLM shares the 

Alliance’s interest and excitement in this important aspect of American history. 

Comment: We believe that Alternative 3 comes closest to fulfilling the multiple-use requirement of 

FLPMA and the additional requirement to avoid the unnecessary or undue degradation of resources and 

values on the public lands. However, we strongly encourage BLM to modify this alternative in the Final 

EIS and determine which historic and cultural resources, including the Upper Green River NHL, Lander 

Trail, Sublette Cutoff, and cultural resources within the area of Trapper’s Point, could benefit from no 

surface occupancy (NSO) or no leasing designations. We also strongly encourage BLM to consider the 

importance of context and setting to the historic significance of these resources during this review.

Response: BLM is attempting to protect and manage the Sublette Cutoff and Lander National Historic 

Trails within its multiple-use mandate; BLM appreciates your support in these efforts. BLM fully 

recognizes the importance of context and setting of the NHTs, and you will note that the Lander Trail 

varies from VRM II to III throughout the document.

Oil and Gas 

Comment: We are concerned that the Draft EIS places too much emphasis on accommodating oil and gas 

leasing and development, and provides inadequate assurances that significant historic resources will be 

protected and managed in a manner consistent with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470h-2. Each of the four alternatives proposed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) in the Draft EIS will further intensify energy development within the Pinedale Field 

Area. In particular, the preferred alternative will make over 95 percent of the federal mineral estate within 

the planning area available for oil and gas leasing and development. We question whether BLM can 

manage oil and gas activity at this level while preventing the unnecessary or undue degradation of the 

many, nationally significant historic resources within the Upper Green River Valley as required by the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1732(b). We are particularly 

concerned for the lack of unqualified commitments within the Draft EIS to protect historic resources of 

known significance from the potential adverse effects of oil and gas development. Accordingly, we 

recommend that BLM develop binding management guidance to ensure that oil and gas development will 

not impair these historic resources, especially those resources associated with the Upper Green River 

Rendezvous Site National Historic Landmark (Upper Green River NHL).

Response: BLM is required to honor valid existing lease rights. BLM agrees that the Section 110 work is 

proving difficult to effect. However, the PFO staff takes pride in the fact that its Section 110 work does 

get implemented. The PFO has recorded several rock art sites and contributed to publication of James D. 

Pinedale RMP A27-137 
Appendix 27—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

Keyser’s book on the subject. The PFO staff has also conducted Section 110 research on wagon roads, the 

Lander Trail, coal mining, the Altithermal, Remote Sensing, Rock Alignment sites, Fort Bonneville, and 

other topics. BLM’s recent work at the Wardell Site, both in stabilization and salvage excavations, 

coupled with interpretation, is particularly noteworthy. Thus while the “106 work” will continue to 

dominate BLM’s efforts, the “110 program” is vibrant in the PFO. BLM feels that the proposed Trapper’s 

Point ACEC, encompassing almost 4,000 BLM acres adjacent to the Green River Rendezvous site (which 

is located entirely on private surface/private minerals holdings) is an important proactive step. 

Comment: A closer reading of the Draft EIS reveals that, if certain circumstances are met, restrictions on 

oil and gas activity “could be lifted if proposed by operators ...” Draft EIS at 2-121, 2-122. Thus, even 

though BLM may designate a culturally important area like Trapper’s Point as an ACEC and make it 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing under the Pinedale RMP, it could later lift this restriction in the interest 

of facilitating energy production. The conversion of restricted areas “into Intensively Developed Fields 

would make that management of intact viewsheds and natural settings more difficult” and pose a major 

threat to historic resources like the Upper Green River NHL whose historic significance is inextricably 

bound up with the visual integrity of the landscape. Id. at 4-23. In the final analysis, the substance of the 

Draft EIS departs very little from the current RMP, under which BLM nearly leased away development 

rights adjacent to a National Historic Landmark.

Response: The provisions for leasing unavailable areas are intended to provide for drainage or other 

situations that might occur in the areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing. It is not BLM’s intention to lift 

this restriction in proposed ACEC areas such as Trapper’s Point. A clarification of this point has been 

added to the final EIS. BLM cannot manage the Programmatic Agreement (NHL) as a whole, because 

part of this area is privately owned. BLM only has authority over those areas that are federally owned. 

Comment: We recommend that BLM place unqualified restrictions on oil and gas leasing and 

development in the area of significant historic and cultural resources. That is, we strongly object to 

provisions within the Draft EIS authorizing BLM to waive development or leasing restrictions at the 

request of oil and gas operators. Areas designated as NSO and no leasing in the Pinedale RMP should 

remain under such designation for the life of the plan in order to provide the public with assurance that 

BLM is meeting its responsibility to preserve historic properties under the Section 110 of the NHPA.

Response: The National Historic Preservation Act, among other things, directs federal agencies to protect 

important cultural resources and, if threatened, mitigate potential adverse effects. While avoidance of 

disturbance is recognized as one way to minimize adverse effects, avoidance in the Jonah gas field, for 

example, is impractical. Thus, BLM implements various mitigations to offset adverse effects to 

significant cultural resources. Additional discussions of how the unavailable and NSO areas work and the 

conditions for conversion to allow development have been added to the final EIS. 

Other 

Comment: In the future, we would ask that the (AHW) Alliance for Historic Wyoming be considered an 

interested party for all Section 106 consultations related to this document. You may contact us at Alliance 

for Historic Wyoming, 712 South Second Street, Laramie, WY 82070, (307) 742-5449.

Response: The Pinedale Field Office engages in about 1,200 individual undertakings per year, and many 

of these have no cultural resources conflicts. Too, it may be outside the purview of RMP commenting to 

request “interested party” status for projects. BLM welcomes the Alliance’s interest in the Pinedale Field 

Office’s cultural program and will be contacting you with regard to the interested party status request.

Comment: We urge BLM to recognize that it is unwarranted to impose severe protection measures along 

the entire length of the trail. Such an approach isn’t even warranted along a Congressional designated 

A27-138 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cultural Resources 

historic trail. Rather, it is more logical for the agency to identify specific areas of highest importance for 

protection while taking into account the possibility of other uses. As stated previously in these comments, 

the purpose of these trails was to open up the West for settlement and development. Oil and gas activities 

are temporary and all visual impacts will be eliminated once production is completed. It is important for 

BLM archeologists to recognize this fact and to work to accommodate oil and gas activities without 

resorting to “no surface occupancy” buffers along the trail. These same comments apply to the next 

paragraph on this page regarding State leases within the Pinedale Anticline development.

Response: NHTs are not the expansion era wagon roads that indeed did pave the way for development. 

Their significance lies in part in a preservation of the natural, unobstructed settings that lend to their 

National Register eligibility. Oil and gas impacts to the National Historic Trails system are not temporary; 

we have noted the impacts to NHT settings for many decades. We seek balance, and when impacts are 

proposed, develop appropriate mitigation. A classic example is within the Pinedale Anticline, where BLM 

developed a Programmatic Agreement among Shell, Ultra, SHPO, OCTA, the Park Service, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and interested parties to mitigate impacts to the NHT setting.

Pinedale RMP A27-139 
Appendix 27—Forestry Final EIS 

Forestry 

General Comment Responses: 

Comments: 

• PAGE: 4.29, SECTION: 4.4.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Reduced logging may result 

in catastrophic fires due to the extent of diseased and pest infested timber in the commercial 

conifer stands. EXPLANATION: RMP should increase logging to reduce fuel loads, a policy set 

out in statute by HFRA. 16 U.S.C. §6501. Of the six purposes set out in HFRA, five address risk 

of catastrophic fire and managing to limit disease and insect infestations. 16 U.S.C. §6501(1)-(5). 

• PAGE: 2-115 Forestry Resources SECTION: 2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise 

Management Goal to conform to Chapter 1. Manage forest and woodland stands to maintain a 

diverse structure of age class and condition consistent with site capability. EXPLANATION: 

Management goal inconsistent with objective stated on 2-23. HFRA does not manage a stated 

number of acres or that all acres be in old growth. Instead, HRFA requires that each site be 

managed for diverse structure and age class of trees to maintain a “healthy” forest. HRFA does 

not direct BLM to manage forests for “pre-fire suppression” conditions when it is not typical of 

the region. Unlike other parts of the country, pre-fire suppression in Wyoming would involve 

large areas of recently burned timber. Any old growth would be in relatively small patches and 

unlikely to remain old growth. In short, pre-suppression conflicts with other objectives in HRFA 

and is not required in HRFA. Not sure where BLM got this objective since not found in law or 

rule. Rocky Mountain forests unlikely to be “fire resistant” since lodgepole pine evolved in fire 

landscape. You get old growth through fire suppression, then disease, insect infestation, and then 

catastrophic forest fires. Congress enacted HRFA to avoid that cycle. Objectives are not 

consistent with HRFA.

Response: Please review Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) Section 102, (e) Old Growth 

Stands, (2) which states “...maintain, or contribute toward the restoration of, the structure and 

composition of old growth stands according to the pre-fire suppression old growth conditions 

characteristic of the forest type taking into account the contribution of the stand to landscape fire 

adaptation and watershed health, and retaining the large trees contributing to old growth structure”. Old 

growth stands vary considerably by forest type. Comparing an old growth western Oregon stand 

comprised of Douglas fir, hemlock, and associated species with a different (longer) disturbance interval to 

a Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine landscape with a very different much shorter disturbance return interval 

is not appropriate. An old growth landscape covers different seral states in a patch dynamics pattern. Old 

growth forests are dynamic systems with seral states that vary across the landscape. Long return interval 

stand replacement fire is a natural fire regime. Most of the long return interval fire regime systems 

(lodgepole pine, specifically) have not been significantly altered by fire suppression. The Fire Regimes 

1–3 which are shorter return interval (5–75 years) are the fire regimes that have been most altered by fire 

suppression activities. 

Unique Comments 

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes 

Comment: With regard to the forestry section is unclear whether timber will be harvested under this 

current proposal. The forestry section 3 .4 speaks of statements and facts of current conditions and 

harvests rather than the impacts of the plan on those harvests. The EIS should outline what federal 

harvesting guidelines should be adhered to if and when subject well sites are developed within those 

areas. Development in those well sites in forest areas have much more of an impact on the environment 

A27-140 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Forestry 

than open range lands, due to do the close proximity and interaction of running water, riparian areas, 

groundwater and wildlife habitat.

Response: The Alternatives Summary Table—page 2-161 of the draft EIS—shows the differences 

between the alternatives. Unfortunately, this table does not include the most current data for potential 

harvest acreages in forested areas. This has been corrected in the final EIS. There are no federal 

guidelines for harvesting. Each potential harvest unit is analyzed and dealt with on a site-specific basis. 

The potential treatment acreage and volume will be updated in each alternative, as follows: 

• Alternative 1 — Forest Treatment: 200 acres, Woodland Treatment: none, Volume: 3,600 

CCF/1,800 MBF 

• Alternative 2 — Forest Treatment: 300 acres, Woodland Treatment: 250 acres, Volume: 2,400 

CCF/1,200 MBF 

• Alternative 3 — Forest Treatment: 200 acres, Woodland Treatment: 700 acres, Volume 1,600 

CCF/800 MBF 

• Alternative 4 — Same as Alternative 3

Comment: PAGE:2-115 SECTION:2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE:d. Forest commodity production 

and stand improvement activities would be directed toward producing healthy forest [stands focused on 

small diameter trees, consistent with making the stand fire resilient.](strikeout) Approximately 700 

CCF/400 MBF of forest products would annually be available for sale. EXPLANATION:Limiting forest 

products to secondary role inconsistent with FLPMA where forest products are a primary multiple use. 

“(l) The term “principal or major uses” includes, and is limited to, domestic livestock grazing, fish and 

wildlife development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor 

recreation, and timber production.” 43 U.S.C. §1702(l). RMP should provide for more output. 

Response: Please review HFRA Section 102, (e) Old Growth Stands, (2) which states “...maintain, or 

contribute toward the restoration of, the structure and composition of old growth stands according to the 

pre-fire suppression old growth conditions characteristic of the forest type taking into account the 

contribution of the stand to landscape fire adaptation and watershed health, and retaining the large trees 

contributing to old growth structure.” 

Old growth stands vary considerably by forest type. Comparing an old growth western Oregon stand 

comprised of Douglas fir, hemlock, and associated species with a different (longer) disturbance interval to 

a Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine landscape with a very different much shorter disturbance return interval 

is not appropriate. An old growth landscape covers different seral states in a patch dynamics pattern. Old 

growth forests are dynamic systems with seral states that vary across the landscape. Long return interval 

stand replacement fire is a natural fire regime. Most of the long return interval fire regime systems 

(lodgepole pine, specifically) have not been significantly altered by fire suppression. The Fire Regimes 1–

3 which are shorter return interval (5–75 years) are the fire regimes that have been most altered by fire 

suppression activities. 

The wording “secondary product” is referenced to the woodlands, where little if any commercial product 

has been removed nor has there been a demand for such products. Little if any “timber”, as referred to in 

FLPMA, is available within the woodlands. Most of the potential product is either firewood or biomass 

(for which little market currently exists). The primary or major uses within these areas are forage for 

wildlife and livestock grazing and for recreation. 

Pinedale RMP A27-141 
Appendix 27—Forestry Final EIS 

Comment: PAGE:2-115 SECTION:2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE b. Restoration of 

aspen stands would be emphasized through removing/reducing conifer [and/or sagebrush](strikeout) 

invasion. Prescribed fire and overstory removal of dead and dying aspen would be used to rejuvenate and 

expand these stands so that watershed and wildlife habitat would be improved, and natural fire breaks 

would be created within the landscape. EXPLANATION: Action should be reconsidered in light of sage 

brush habitat issues for sage grouse. 

Response: Areas that support aspen stands are not considered sage-grouse habitat by wildlife specialists. 

Sage-grouse may make some transitory use of these areas, but that use is minimal. The only grouse 

species that make significant usage of aspen stands are blue-grouse and spruce-grouse. Aspen restoration 

would benefit these species by re-establishing portions of their habitat. 

Comment: PAGE:2-116 SECTION:2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD d. Encourage cutting of 

Christmas trees and posts and poles. EXPLANATION: RMP omits these important uses of forest and 

wood stands. 

Response: This issue is addressed in Section 2.3.3 of the draft EIS, Management Guidance Common to 

All Alternatives, page 2-6, second paragraph. These totals are much higher than historic use and were 

developed to account for potential increased demand. 

Comment: PAGE: 4.26, SECTION: 4.4.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD discussion of current 

conditions for commercial stands of conifer. ADD Management would address areas where there is high 

mortality, especially in commercial conifer stands. EXPLANATION: The MSA notes high mortality in 

commercial stands MSA 3-35; but assumptions omit this important fact and corollary need to address the 

problem. MSA 3-35 “Most stands in the planning area are starting to exhibit a reduction in vigor and 

wood fiber production and increases in disease and insect susceptibility as well as mortality. Inventory 

data indicate that current mortality rates vary from zero volume loss in young seedling and sapling stands 

to 18.4 cubic feet per acre per year in the spruce-fir sawtimber stands. The average mortality rate for all 

stands is approximately 7.7 cubic feet per acre per year or a total yearly loss level of nearly 1.64 mmbf. 

About 98 percent (1.61 mmbf) of the mortality is occurring in the commercial conifer. Primary insects or 

diseases include bark beetles, dwarf mistletoe, and several varieties of rusts.”

Response: The third assumption in Section 4.4.1 of the draft EIS lists forest health as a major 

determining factor in forest management. However, the items referred to are a condition of aging stands, 

close to their natural disturbance regime. 

Comment: PAGE: 4.27, SECTION: 4.4.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Grazing by 

livestock, wild horses, and wildlife [Livestock grazing] (STRIKEOUT) could affect forest management 

actions. The regeneration of aspen and other deciduous trees and shrubs in forested and riparian areas 

could be reduced by livestock and wildlife grazing. EXPLANATION: Bias evident here and change is 

needed. Deer and elk are equally or more fond of aspen.

Response: You are correct. Wildlife grazing/browsing on regeneration was inadvertently left out. The 

Proposed RMP includes large ungulate wildlife in the grazing/browsing impacts. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-27, SECTION: 4.4.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Portions of the 

Wyoming Range forest/woodland area have a high potential for coalbed natural gas (CBNG) 

development although using current technology these areas are not considered commercially feasible 

(ENSR and Booz Allen Hamilton 2003). EXPLANATION: Drilling for CBM at 3500' would be very 

speculative. The statement is not accurate as written.

A27-142 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Forestry 

Response: Active wells are present in the area in question. Speculative or not, coalbed natural gas 

(CBNG) is being produced. 

Comment: PAGE: 4.27, SECTION: 4.4.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Forest management 

techniques including logging will contribute to forest health by removing dead and dying trees, reducing 

the spread of insects and diseased trees, and reducing the likelihood of a catastrophic fire. The sale of 

forest products also provide economic benefits to the communities. EXPLANATION: RMP needs to 

acknowledge the management needs and risk of fire due to decadent stand conditions.

Response: The final EIS has been updated to include these impacts.

Comment: PAGE: 4-160, SECTION: 4.13.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Impacts resulting from 

forest management would be less than those under Alternative 1. Fewer acres would be available for 

harvest of forest products and this increases the risk of major fires with resulting loss of vegetation, soil 

erosion, water pollution, emissions, and loss of wildlife habitat. Managing forests for a disturbance-based 

seral state would create a more diverse forest age-class structure and as a result, woody vegetation, fuel 

loadings, insect infestations, and catastrophic wildland fires would decrease. The lower timber harvest 

proposed under this alternative would also reduce the ability for weeds to establish themselves in 

disturbed areas.

Response: This paragraph was poorly worded in the draft EIS. There is the potential for the same acres of 

forested land to be treated, but with less forest product coming off the land. This alternative also has 

woodland treatments where Alternative 1 has none. See the updated text in the final EIS. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-182 SECTION: 4.17.3 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Forest management 

practices would change the seral stage of the affected stands. Many forest management practices are 

designed to alter or set back the seral stage of the forest community. Harvest of late-seral or climax forest 

stands would change the structure and species makeup of timber stands to favor early-seral species and 

address morbidity in stands, disease, and risk of catastrophic fire. These activities would potentially 

increase species diversity and richness, depending on different wildlife species’ habitat requirements. This 

would affect all wildlife species dependent on those forest seral stages. Properly mitigated commercial 

timber harvests could improve big game habitat in the long term. Timber management activities would 

improve big game habitat by improving forest age class diversity and distribution, edge effect, and forage 

community diversity.

Response: This change has been made in the final EIS, except with the word “large” in place of 

“catastrophic”.

Comment: PAGE: 4-182 SECTION: 4.17.3 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Access roads for 

logging operations could affect aquatic habitats by concentrating stream flow, increasing erosion rates, 

scouring streambanks and increasing water yields. and [fragmenting habitats.](STRIKEOUT) Increased 

spring runoff could increase erosion but establish more stable streams and rivers. Removal of forest 

understory vegetative cover by logging or fire could alter aquatic habitats by changing the time to peak 

discharge following precipitation events and increasing sediment transport from upland sources to the 

stream channel. This also impacts a forage component required for many forest-dwelling species. 

EXPLANATION: Rosgen D. research shows that increased water yields scour streambanks and improve 

water habitat. These changes are not necessarily adverse. EIS needs to disclose both costs and benefits 

rather than implying that all impacts are bad.

Response: Stream dynamics and channel function are the results of complex interactions of forces (e.g., 

gravitational, electromagnetic, and chemical) and vegetation. Some erosion within a stream channel is 

Pinedale RMP A27-143 
Appendix 27—Forestry Final EIS 

natural, as are the processes that stabilize sediment and aid channel stability. Roads and removal of 

vegetation within the riparian area tend to decrease watershed capacity, resulting in more rapid run-off. 

This also frequently results in changes in stream channel conditions that benefit some species while being 

detrimental to others. Again, this is a complex matrix of interactions. The increased flow that creates 

potential spawning gravels may also degrade other gravels by filling them with sediment and decreasing 

the volume of water available for late season flows. These interactions are complex and too site-specific 

to be covered in this document. On the whole, the greatest amount of habitat diversity and stability is 

maintained when efforts are made to keep water on the land longer. This means that the initial statement 

is correct and will remain in the document. The Rosgen statement appears to have been taken out of 

context. 

Other 

Comment: Also related to preventing Waste of timber resources, scorched standing timber and 

blowdowns as have occurred should be lumbered/salvaged before rot/waste regardless of where 

(wilderness or not).

Response: Forest health issues are a major determining factor in forest management. Where it is 

determined that it is feasible and appropriate to do salvage logging, it will be done. Wilderness and 

wilderness study areas have restrictions on what type of treatment can be done. Mechanized harvesting 

cannot be done in these areas, leaving prescribed fire and wildland fire as the major treatment options 

open to BLM.

A27-144 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Lands and Realty 

Lands and Realty 

General Comment Responses (GCRs) 

Comments: 

• The BLM has not demonstrated the need for the right-of-way (“ROW”) avoidance and exclusion 

areas in the PAPA. APC owns numerous oil and gas leases in the area and its ability to develop 

those leases could be significantly impacted if the BLM inappropriately limits AFC’s ability to 

access said leases. The BLM must allow oil and gas lessees and operators to design access routes 

to facilitate development projects. Further, the creation of the ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas does not appear to reflect or acknowledge APC’s valid and existing lease rights or its rights 

as the operator of units such as the Two Buttes Unit. The Interior Board of Land Appeals has 

noted that “[w]hen a federal unit has been approved and the unitized area is producing, rights-ofway are generally not required for production facilities and access roads within the unit area.” 

Southern Utah Wilderness Society, et al., 127 IBLA 331, 372 (1993). If lessees are not allowed 

access to their lease parcels, or are prohibited from installing pipelines necessary to transport the 

produced resource, they are deprived of all economic benefit of the lease. In such situations, the 

lessee, the State of Wyoming, and the federal government will be deprived of the economic 

benefit of potential oil and gas development, and the BLM may be inappropriately taking APC’s 

property rights in violation of the U.S. Constitution. 

• There are also areas designated as right-of-way (ROW) exclusion areas throughout the 

DRMP/EIS, yet inadequate justification is provided. The maps in the DRMP/EIS do not enable 

one to determine the locations of the proposed exclusion areas. BLM must provide strong 

justification for designating areas as off-limits to pipelines, access roads and other ROWs, and the 

maps must be clear to enable readers to analyze the effects on resources and how ROW exclusion 

areas would affect existing leases.

Response: All valid existing rights will be honored. 

Comments: 

• In the Final EIS and revised RMP, the BLM should continue to leave most of the Pinedale 

Resource Area open for wireless communications infrastructure. Specifically, the BLM should 

adopt Alternative #1 or Alternative #2 because they would allow the siting of wireless 

communications infrastructure on a large percentage of BLM-administered land, while adopting 

fewer restrictions on the types of uses and facilities. Based on the description in the Pinedale 

Draft RMP/EIS, Alternatives #1 and #2 appear to be consistent with the executive and legislative 

directives that require the BLM to make federal land available for the siting of wireless 

communications infrastructure. These Alternatives also promote the federal policies favoring 

emergency communications and the deployment of telecommunication to rural areas.(This 

paragraph is located on page 25). 

• The BLM should provide more opportunities to site wireless communications infrastructure on 

federal lands because it would improve the local economy and the uses of adjacent areas. 

Although the BLM must weigh various principles of resource management in its preparation of 

an RMP, section 1601.0-8 of the BLM’s rules also requires the consideration of “the impact on 

local economies and uses of adjacent or nearby non-Federal lands.” 

• Union has committed to the deployment of emergency communications throughout its service 

area. The FCC has stated that “the public interest demands that carriers and technology providers 

Pinedale RMP A27-145 
Appendix 27—Lands and Realty Final EIS 

strive to ensure that when wireless callers dial 911, emergency responders are provided with 

location information that enables them to reach the site of the emergency as quickly as 

possible.”41 Furthermore, the FCC has warned that “inadequate location information can result in 

a loss of life that might otherwise have been prevented.”42 To provide these communications, 

however, Union will need to construct wireless communications infrastructure.43 Thus, the BLM 

should prepare a Final EIS and revised RMP to encourage and facilitate the siting of this 

infrastructure on federal lands in the Pinedale Resource Area.

Response: It is reasonable to place restrictions on commercial and other activities to protect surface 

resources. The Preferred Alternative would not prohibit development of new communication sites. 

Unique Comments 

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes 

Comment: PAGE: 4.36, SECTION: 4.5.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE for accuracy Under 

this alternative, activities [impacts] (STRIKEOUT) from wildlife and fisheries management would be 

greater than under Alternative 1 because of an increased emphasis on habitat enhancement and protection 

and because of additional restrictions on surface disturbing and other disruptive activities. For greater 

sage-grouse, big game, sensitive species, and raptors in Intensively Developed Fields, Minimally 

Developed Areas, and Unavailable Areas, the restrictions placed on development would result in more 

impacts and restrictions to lands and realty. The placement of ROWs, as well as the windows of 

construction opportunity for building pipelines, roads, etc., could be affected by both seasonal restrictions 

and the presence of NSO areas. Relocation or rerouting of the rights-of-way will increase surface 

disturbance by increasing distances. It also concentrates use in areas rather than dispersing impacts. These 

restrictions would also impact structure types, heights, and locations. This would either decrease 

opportunities for ROW authorizations or increase the stipulations placed on ROW authorizations, which 

could increase cost to the proponents. EXPLANATION: Makes no sense to say greater impacts on 

wildlife and fisheries when preceding paragraph concludes that there will be less surface disturbance and 

impacts due to mineral development. It might be more accurate to say there may be more activity but not 

necessarily greater adverse environmental impacts.

Response: The impacts referred to in the text are from wildlife and fisheries management activities, 

projects, and restrictions, which would be enhanced under this alternative, to the Lands and Realty 

Program. Additional restrictions on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would potentially limit 

opportunities to approve Lands and Realty projects.

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-31: “As an example, stipulations could be placed on pipeline or road 

ROWs, which call for dust suppressants. The requirement to use dust suppressants could increase 

construction costs. Formal consultation would be required for any project-related activity (dust 

suppression) that would cause a depletion of the Colorado River system.” Recommendations: Most dust 

suppression water does not come from the Colorado River, so statement needs to be corrected and 

quantified.

Response: Any water in the Pinedale Resource Management Planning Area, whether it comes from wells, 

rivers, etc., is part of the Colorado River system. 

Comment: a. Existing routes (‘corridors’) for large utility facilities would be maintained (Map 3-10). No 

new routes would be identified. New development would be limited to existing routes. 

b. Linear ROW crossings in 100-year flood plains, wetlands, and riparian areas would be considered on a 

case-by-case basis (Map 3-14). 

A27-146 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Lands and Realty 

c. No exceptions would be permitted for activities in ROW exclusion areas (Map 2-24; Table 2-27, p. 2-

165). 

d. ROW for communication sites would be processed on a case-by-case basis with the following criteria: 

1. Development would be limited to already-existing multiple use sites; no new sites would be 

established. 

2. Towers on all sites would be restricted to heights that do not require lighting, in accordance with 

Federal Aviation Administration regulations. 

3. All new and replacement towers would be self supporting and non-guyed. 

4. New users on all sites would be responsible for notifying existing users of frequencies and for 

resolving any interference problems with existing facilities.” 

Recommendations: This is unnecessarily restrictive and not realistic; USQ recommends its modification 

and/or deletion.

Response: An adequate range of alternatives is provided for analysis purposes. Alternatives 2 and 4 are 

less restrictive than Alternative 3.

Comment: The DRMP also prohibits new routes (corridors) for “large utility facilities” (pg. 2-79). It is 

unreasonable for BLM to impose this restriction when it is clear that existing energy transportation 

corridors are already full. The FRMP must provide for new corridors where needed.

Response: An adequate range of alternatives is provided for analysis purposes. Alternatives 2 and 4 are 

less restrictive than Alternative 3.

Comment: PAGE: 4-139, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE EXPLANATION: Acres to be 

withdrawn do not add up and are not consistent.

Response: In the final EIS, text has been updated to change special management area (SMA) to special 

recreation management area (SRMA) and to make the discussion more generic, emphasizing SRMAs and 

an extensive recreation management area. 

Comment: The table on page 2-161 indicates ROW avoidance on the Lander and the Sublette, and then 

later indicates ROW exclusion on the Lander and Sublette. Is this an inadvertent duplication, or do the 

two statements have different meanings? 

Response: Table 2-27 of the draft EIS, right-of-way (ROW) Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by 

Alternative, indicates that the trails are ROW avoidance, not ROW exclusion areas. The trails also have 

several other surface disturbance limitations as specified in Chapter 2. 

Comment: On page 2-117, the BLM indicates that exceptions to ROW avoidance and exclusion areas 

would only be granted if certain criteria are met. The criteria for both ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas, however, are identical. The BLM should develop less stringent criteria to utilize when considering 

exceptions to ROW avoidance areas; otherwise, the two designations are not significantly different.

Response: The text has been revised in the final EIS.

Pinedale RMP A27-147 
Appendix 27—Lands and Realty Final EIS 

Comment: PAGE: 3-25, SECTION: 3.5.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE : State and local governments 

can acquire public land by lease or patent for public purposes and must pay for land used as landfills or 

other waste purposes under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. EXPLANATION: The EIS omits 

RPPA acquisitions and incorrectly implies that RPPA would be under §203, FLPMA sale authority. 

Response: The definition of R&PP (Recreation and Public Purpose Act of 1926) disposal has been added 

to the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 4.36, SECTION: 4.5.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE to Increase land 

available for disposal. EXPLANATION: RMP assumes need for additional land for community 

development. The RMP and MSA already identify potential of 6400 acres suitable for disposal and 

14,500 suitable for exchange (DEIS 2-26) but only 790 acres are classified for disposal. This is a big and 

unexplained difference.

Response: Although 6,300 acres meet the FLPMA disposal criteria for sale, approximately 5,510 acres of 

the 6,300 acres contain one of the criteria in Appendix 13 of the draft EIS for retention or acquisition. 

Comment: PAGE: G-8 CHANGE: EXCLUSION AREA – Areas with sensitive resource values where 

rights-of-way and 302 permits, leases and easements would not be authorized unless required by law. 

EXPLANATION: (1) FLPMA requires that all actions of the BLM are subject to valid existing rights, 

and there may be circumstances where the right-of-way is required by statute. FLPMA § 701(a), (h). Cf. 

1997 Green River RMP Glossary (recognizing rights-of-way in exclusion areas may be granted when 

mandated by law) (2) Rights-of-way are one of the principle uses under FLPMA, and congressional 

reporting requirements apply if the plan designates an exclusion area over 100,000 acres. 43 C.F.R. § 

1712(e) (management decisions excluding one or more of the principal major uses for two or more years 

with respect to a tract of land of one hundred thousand acres or more subject to congressional reporting 

and approval requirements), § 1702(l) (defining principle or major uses to include rights of- way). Also, 

the draft statewide consistency definition explains that the term is not exclusive to lands and realty action 

proposals, and FLPMA’s congressional approval procedures applicable to withdrawals aggregating 5,000 

acres or more may be triggered depending on activity prohibition. 43 U.S.C. § 1714(c).

Response: An updated definition of “exclusion area” has been included in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-26 CHANGE: WITHDRAWAL – [An action that restricts the use of described 

public lands from operation of certain laws, which are also described in the withdrawal 

order.](STRIKEOUT) Withholding an area of federal land from settlement, sale, location or entry, for the 

purpose of limiting activities in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a 

particular public purpose or program. Withdrawal also may be used to transfer jurisdiction or 

management to other federal agencies. EXPLANATION: The definition is too general and needs to be 

revised to incorporate the more specific definition under FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1702(j).

Response: The proposed definition of “withdrawal” is in error. The final EIS contains an updated 

definition. 

Wireless Communications 

Comment: The BLM also should encourage and facilitate the siting of wireless communications 

infrastructure on federal lands because it would advance significant public policy goals. As mentioned 

above, a purpose of the Communications Act is to promote “communication by wire and radio so as to 

make available . . . to all the people of the United States, . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service.”59 The siting of wireless communications infrastructure also 

A27-148 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Lands and Realty 

would coincide with the efforts of other federal agencies to promote the deployment of 

telecommunications in rural areas.

Response: Commenter failed to provide specific revisions on how to encourage and facilitate the siting of 

communication infrastructure on federal lands. 

Comment: The BLM should prepare a Final EIS and revised RMP for the Pinedale Resource Area to 

assist other federal agencies in meeting their statutory mandates and regulatory policies. For example, the 

FCC must promote the availability of wireless communications in rural areas under the Communications 

Act.° The FCC has stated that “wireless services have advanced to the point where many people rely on 

them for communications wherever they may be, whether at home or in the workplace, indoors or 

outdoors, or in an urban, suburban or rural area.”61 In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which 

revised the Communications Act, Congress also required the FCC to implement a federal Universal 

Service Fund to promote connectivity in rural areas through financial incentives to institutions that 

provide telecommunications and information services.62 In addition, the FCC has adopted several 

measures “to promote access to spectrum and facilitate capital formation for entities seeking to serve rural 

areas or improve service in rural areas.”63 The FCC also has initiated other programs to increase access 

to communications in rural areas.64

Response: Commenter failed to provide specific examples on how assist other federal agencies in 

meeting their statutory mandates and regulatory policies. 

Comment: wireless providers often need to site communications infrastructure on federal lands to ensure 

that rural areas receive access to mobile wireless services. Union also requires access to federal lands to 

install infrastructure for its fixed wireless, or tellular, communications service. Union provides tellular 

service to many ranches and other remote residents for which the cost of building wireline service is 

prohibitive. Thus, the BLM should prepare a Final EIS and revised RMP to facilitate the deployment of 

wireless communications infrastructure to permit the provision of these much-needed telecommunications 

and broadband services.

Response: Commenter failed to provide specifics on how to facilitate the deployment of wireless 

communications infrastructure. 

Comment: The BLM should prepare a Final EIS and revised RMP for the Pinedale Resource Area to 

facilitate the siting of wireless communications infrastructure on federal lands because it would further 

the statutory and regulatory goals of land-use planning. Although the BLM must balance the management 

of various land uses in the Pinedale Resource Area, the siting of wireless communications infrastructure 

would (1) be consistent with the existing RMP; (2) not compromise public resources; (3) support other 

uses of federal lands; (4) correspond to the policies of other governmental entities; and (5) benefit the 

local economy and the use of adjacent non-federal areas.

Response: Commenter failed to provide specifics on how the siting of wireless communications 

infrastructure would (1) be consistent with the existing RMP; (2) not compromise public resources; (3) 

support other uses of federal lands; (4) correspond to the policies of other governmental entities; and (5) 

benefit the local economy and the use of adjacent non-federal areas. 

Comment: The BLM also should retain a flexible approach for the siting of wireless communications 

infrastructure because of the inherent limitations of utility corridors. In particular, the BLM should be 

aware that utility corridors often are not traditionally designed to accommodate the type of infrastructure 

necessary to provide modern wireless telephone operations. For example, existing corridors are typically 

used for the siting of point-to-point microwave systems, which have different technical and operational 

Pinedale RMP A27-149 
Appendix 27—Lands and Realty Final EIS 

requirements than mobile wireless systems. The use of these existing corridors frequently results in dead 

zones within a wireless network.

Response: Utility corridors have nothing to do with the siting of wireless communications. Wireless 

communication sites would not be subject to the same restrictions placed on linear ROWs and would not 

be limited to ROW corridors.

Comment: As Sheriff of Sublette County, it is my responsibility to provide communications for law 

enforcement, EMS and fire services. Some of the repeaters and towers we communicate with are on BLM 

ground. As part of the Resource Management Plan, I would ask that these sites be held and keep existing 

sites that have been studied, and found useful in providing continued services to Sublette County.

Response: Existing communication towers will not be affected by decisions in this RMP.

Comment: Page 4-207, paragraph 7, discusses ROW management and states “as oil and gas demands 

increase, these corridors are stretched across miles of landscapes” it should be noted that the areas 

designated as Intensely Developed and Minimally Developed are not substantially greater than the areas 

currently being developed for energy extraction. Paragraph 8 requires communication towers to be selfsupporting and non-guyed, is this technically feasible given the Wyoming winds?

Response: Currently, many of the communication towers are self-supporting and non-guyed. This type of 

tower has proven to be technically feasible and will allow communication sites to be placed close 

together.

Comment: Another restriction is limiting communication sites to those already-existing, and imposing 

further restrictions on towers. The DRMP has provided no basis for imposing restrictions that would 

impair field communications and prevent the use of remote telemetry. Again, justification must be 

provided for these unreasonable restrictions.

Response: The intent is not to restrict, but to designate areas where communications site for multiple 

users may occur. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-117, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Insert in ¶g 1. Communication sites would 

consider technical need, including range and location. EXPLANATION: RMP incorrectly assumes 

existing sites are adequate when technical specifications as to range and location should be the dominant 

consideration. Existing locations are only suitable if they meet technical specifications. RMP fails to deal 

with basic characteristics of communication sites.

Response: An adequate range of alternatives is provided for analysis purposes. Alternatives 2 and 4 are 

less restrictive than Alternative 3, and both provide for considering communication sites on a case-bycase basis. This approach considers technical specifications of the site.

Land Tenure Adjustments/Sales 

Comment: To specifically highlight one significant area of concern, I would greatly appreciate the 

BLM’s consideration of language in the RMP that would initiate land disposal or land exchanges. 

Pinedale is surrounded by public lands administered by the BLM and is facing a severe housing shortage 

and as such, the RMP should identify parcels that could be considered for exchange, disposal or other 

action to allow Pinedale to address these needs.

Response: BLM-administered public lands located northeast of the town of Pinedale contain a major big 

game migration bottleneck and are not suitable for community expansion. Lands southwest of Pinedale 

A27-150 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Lands and Realty 

are located in the Pinedale Anticline gas field. Land tenure adjustments would be considered per the 

criteria set forth in Appendix 13 of the draft EIS. Lands suitable for consideration for disposal, exchange, 

and acquisition are identified in Appendix 14 of the draft EIS.

Comment: Please see joint letter included with our comments, from the Sublette County Board of 

County Commissioners and Pinedale Mayor’s office, requesting lands within 2 miles of Pinedale not be 

leased so that future growth would not be inhibited. 

Response: BLM-administered public lands and mineral estate within 2 miles of the town of Pinedale fall 

into two categories: those included in the Pinedale Anticline development and already leased, and those in 

the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Ponds area south of Fremont Lake. The Fremont Lake lands are 

not available for oil and gas leasing or development under the Proposed Plan. They are also not available 

for town expansion. Lands on the Mesa would remain leased and available for oil and gas development 

for the foreseeable future, while the Pinedale Anticline gas field is developed.

Comment: PAGE:2-116 SECTION:2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE:REVISE a. Of the 6,300 acres 

that meet FLPMA disposal criteria for sale, [790](strikeout) 6300 acres would be available (Appendix 14, 

Map 2-31). EXPLANATION: Making only 790 acres available for disposal of the 6300 acres eligible for 

community development contradicts Objective 2. It is also not responsive to the transportation issues 

raised below. Sublette County lacks land for housing and its roads are crowded and trashed by daily 

commuters to and from gas fields. If the land is identified as suitable for disposal in the RMP it is 

arbitrary and capricious to then limit disposal to a mere 790 acres.

Response: Most of the lands identified as suitable for disposal are not conveniently located for 

community expansion. Having lands available or not available for disposal has nothing to do with 

transportation needs because roads are handled under the ROW program.

Comment: As to BLM lands available for sale, are there protections against aggressive logging and/or 

drilling? There are significant water, scenic and wildlife values in parcels in 36N, 112 and 113W. These 

should be protected by deed restrictions.

Response: Public lands in T. 36 N., R. 112 W. and 113 W., are only available for sale under Alternative 

1. Under the other 3 alternatives, including the preferred alternative, these lands could only be disposed of 

through exchange under the criteria set forth in Appendix 13 of the draft EIS. If an exchange were to ever 

occur with these parcels, a public meeting or meetings would be held to gather input for a site-specific 

analysis from the public at that time regarding what interest (i.e., minerals) would be conveyed through 

the exchange.

Comment: We are requesting BLM keep open the possible transfer of ownership of BLM lands within 

this two mile radius of the Town of Pinedale to either the Town or the County.

Response: Land tenure adjustments would be considered per the criteria set forth in Appendix 13 of the 

draft EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 2-118, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete ¶j. [j. No water disposal pits would be 

permitted.] (strikeout), EXPLANATION: As noted above, the better solution is to convey land to the 

county for a waste site and allow for disposal of produced water there. The current policy has a number of 

adverse environmental impacts and the FEIS fails to address these significant adverse cumulative impacts. 

This policy has the effect of transferring the adverse impacts to private land. Because there is so little 

private land in this region, the cumulative impacts are more intense and thus more severe.

Pinedale RMP A27-151 
Appendix 27—Lands and Realty Final EIS 

Response: Most lands suitable for water disposal pits would not meet the criteria set forth for disposal 

actions. If a parcel did meet both FLPMA and Appendix 13 criteria, the only instrument available to sell 

public land for commercial purposes is a Section 203 FLPMA sale on a competitive basis. If sold under a 

competitive basis, there is no guarantee who would submit the highest bid and what purpose the lands 

would be used for.

Oil and Gas 

Comment: The following are things that I would like to see in the RMP: • Notify nearby and on-site 

landowners of lease sales before the sales occur.

Response: This is not an RMP decision, but rather Wyoming BLM policy.

Comment: MINERAL MANAGEMENT REFERENCE: Appendix 10 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: 

Appendix 10 contains a description of surface disturbances associated with oil and gas development but 

doesn’t include any mention or description of required infrastructures for these activities. SUGGESTED 

REVISION/ACTION: Communications, electrical and many other necessary facilities are required to 

support the activities described in this appendix. PacifiCorp recommend that this appendix be revised and 

expanded to include the other infrastructures 

Response: Appendix 10 of the draft EIS has been updated in the final EIS to address additional 

infrastructures associated with oil and gas development. 

Comment: TO BE ADDED TO SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION FOR MINERAL MANAGEMENT 

APPENDIX 10 COMMENT: SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: that will be required to support the 

estimated 5,300 to 8,724 additional wells proposed during the next 20 years.

Response: Appendix 10 in the draft EIS has been updated in the final EIS to address additional 

infrastructures associated with oil and gas development. 

Comment: REFERENCE: 4.14.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, pg. 4-165 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: 

The acreage in Class II would be substantially increased to 30 % from the current 10%. SUGGESTED 

REVISION/ACTION: PacifiCorp is concerned that this increase in Class II designation and the 

associated siting restrictions would limit or preclude construction of support infrastructure facilities to 

already authorized oil and gas developments.

Response: These impacts are discussed in Section 4.5 of the draft EIS, which includes impacts to the 

lands and realty resource, where these ROW actions would be processed.

Comment: As with previous alternatives, the BLM has not adequately explained or justified the right-ofway (“ROW”) exclusion areas throughout the Pinedale Resource Area. Alternative 4 would prohibit water 

disposal pits in the planning area. See RMP DEIS, Pgs. 2-118, 2-120 - 122. Unfortunately, the phrase 

“water disposal pits” is not defined. Does the phrase apply to disposal pits for produced water sometimes 

associated with coalbed natural gas development or reserve and completion pits which are a normal and 

integral part of oil and gas development? If the BLM intends to prohibit reserve and completion pits; the 

BLM Is significantly limiting operators’ ability to develop the oil and gas resources under their leasehold. 

The BLM should not prohibit reserve: and completion pits. 

Response: The term, as used in the draft EIS, was not meant to include reserve or completion pits.

Language dealing with water disposal pits has been revised in the final EIS.

A27-152 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Lands and Realty 

Comment: PAGE: 2-118, EXPLANATION: Also the policy ignores other opportunities for reinjection or 

desalination.

Response: Prohibition of water disposal pits would not affect the ability to use reinjection wells or 

desalinization plants. 

Comment: REFERENCE: Table 2-31 pgs. 2-171 to 174 and Appendix 5 – Fluid Minerals 

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: This summary of surface disturbance restrictions table and appendix contains 

surface disturbance restrictions within oil and gas development areas that appear to be inconsistent with 

other requirements for Alternative 4 (e.g., 1⁄4 mile from occupied sage grouse leks, 1000 feet from active 

raptor nests or 1,400 feet for ferruginous hawks and no dates provided for “strutting season”) 

SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: In most other section of the document these requirements are much 

more restrictive. PacifiCorp could support these restrictions if they are intended to apply to all activities, 

but would encourage the BLM to clarify what appears to be conflicting management restrictions.

Response: Appendix 5 of the draft EIS contains best management practices (BMPs) that would be 

applied as appropriate. The BMPs are not intended to be prescriptive management actions, such as those 

found in Chapter 2 of the draft EIS. Table 2-31 and Appendix 12 of the draft EIS have been reviewed for 

accuracy and to be consistent with other portions of the document.

Corridors/ROWs 

Comment: Under this alternative, the BLM has also inappropriately limited the creation of new utility 

corridors, potentially in violation of Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which requires the 

BLM to designate utility corridors to foster oil and gas development. Alt. 3

Response: The intent is not to restrict, but to designate areas where corridors may occur, as stated on 

page 2-117 of the draft EIS.

Comment: These new required electrical facilities would require rights-of- way on federal land and no 

new corridors or allowances for such facilities are identified in the EIS and RMP. PacifiCorp generally 

supports most components of Alternative 4 but has concerns with the BLM not identifying any new utility 

corridors through or adjacent to the permitted development fields. The RMP also contains many surface 

occupancy or seasonal cultural, visual, wildlife or other resource constraints that could preclude 

construction of the required infrastructure required to provide safe reliable electrical service to the 

growing development and surrounding areas. PacifiCorp would like to see Alternative 4 include 

designation of new utility corridors and provisions for exceptions to resource constraints if the facilities 

are sited within authorized corridors or within Intensively and Minimally Developed oil and gas fields. 

We have prepared specific comments on the draft RMP which are included in the enclosed table. 

Response: PacifiCorp’s current main power line into Pinedale is identified as a corridor on Map 3-10, as 

are several other corridors. Due to the incompatibility of pipelines and power lines, as explained to BLM 

by both industries, trying to designate power line corridors through Minimally Developed Areas would be 

very difficult, and next to impossible in Intensively Developed Fields. Please note that the term 

“Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS.

Comment: REFERENCE: Transmission Corridors DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: On August 8, 2005, 

President Bush signed into law the first National Energy Plan in more than a decade. The Plan provides 

for the designation of “Energy Corridors” in 11 western states, which, in turn, will be incorporated into 

various RMPs/Forest Management Plans in those states. The enactment of the Energy Corridor 

requirement emphasizes the importance of proper transmission corridor planning at the western regional 

and local RMP/Forest Plan levels. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: PacifiCorp recommends that the 

Pinedale RMP A27-153 
Appendix 27—Lands and Realty Final EIS 

BLM take active steps to work with stakeholders at the federal, state, and local level to expand the 

concept of federal Energy Corridors to state-wide utility corridors that include state and local government 

lands. These corridors should be identified in RMPs as they are updated or renewed. In addition to 

addressing existing energy needs, the establishment of state-wide utility corridors must take into 

consideration reasonable foreseeable development. Engaging electrical utilities and state land 

management agencies in the energy corridor planning process will improve communication and avoid 

unnecessary delays in the country’s efforts to meet current and future demands for electricity. 

Response: Pinedale Field Office has worked and will continue to work with surrounding federal agencies 

in corridor planning. 

Comment: REFERENCE: Transmission Corridors DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: In November 2005, 

PacifiCorp prepared and submitted a map to the Department of Energy of its identified or proposed 

energy corridors as part of the West-Wide Energy Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS). These corridors were submitted in response to a DOE and DOI Notice of Intent to 

prepare the West-Wide Energy Corridor PEIS as directed by Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. PacifiCorp also submitted GIS data and maps of its current high voltage transmission line locations 

within the study area. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: PacifiCorp recommends that the BLM 

designate areas that are currently occupied by high voltage electric transmission lines as energy corridors.

Response: PacifiCorp’s high voltage power lines are designated as corridors as shown on Map 3-10 of 

the draft EIS.

Comment: Lands and Realty REFERENCE: Assumptions – pg. 4-30 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: The 

analysis is based on the following assumptions: • ROW’s for energy related facilities (roads, pipelines, 

etc.) are anticipated to increase. • The installation of power lines, telephone lines, fiber-optic cable and 

communications sites is anticipated to increase. • The effects of designation and development of 

transportation and utility ROW corridors would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis. SUGGESTED 

REVISION/ACTION: PacifiCorp agrees with these assumptions and recommends that the final EIS and 

RMP include designation of additional corridors and guidelines for ROW corridor designation to meet the 

needs of the upcoming permitted energy developments. To avoid conflicts and overlaps, BLM should 

adopt procedures that require all existing entities to be notified when there are plans for an applicant to 

install new facilities within an existing ROW so uses do not conflict with each other.

Response: Procedures are in place for existing ROW holders to be notified if a new facility is to be 

placed near or adjacent to an existing ROW. Federal regulations at 43 CFR 2807.14 state that existing 

ROW holders will be notified when it receives a grant application for land subject to your grant or near or 

adjacent to it. All applications for permit to drill (APDs) are posted for 30 days for public review at the 

local BLM office.

Comment: REFERENCE: ROW Incompatibility DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: Placement of energy 

facilities adjacent to each other or other activities may result in safety or incompatibility issues. Activities 

generally excluded from transmission (high voltage) utility corridors include mining, materials storage 

and disposal, range and wildlife habitat improvements involving facility construction, non-linear energy 

project development, blasting, excavation, and high profile (tall) facility development. SUGGESTED 

REVISION/ACTION: The RMP should include a specific provision stating that ROW facilities will not 

be placed adjacent to each other if issues with safety or incompatibility or resource conflicts are 

identified. The Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC), a regional coordinating council for 

western utility groups, also supports it. It is not always possible for multiple electrical lines to be located 

in the same ROW corridor and still maintain adequate separation from other lines or utilities (such as gas 

pipelines). All utilities must be placed so as to meet reliability and safety standards, particularly with an 

A27-154 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Lands and Realty 

eye toward reducing the risk of losing all lines due to a common disaster (lighting strike, earthquake, etc.) 

within a single corridor.

Response: The suggestion to state in the RMP that ROW facilities would not be placed adjacent to each 

other if safety or incompatibility issues are identified has merit. The final EIS has been revised to include 

language to this effect.

Comment: REFERENCE: Access Under Emergency Situations DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: In an 

electrical emergency situation, unimpeded access and an exemption to any seasonal restrictions must be 

available to inspect and conduct necessary repairs within a right-of-way area governed by a ROW Grant. 

SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: The RMP should include the definition of an Electrical Emergency 

Condition. As defined in PacifiCorp’s ROW grants with the BLM, an “Electrical Emergency Condition” 

is a condition or situation that is imminently likely to endanger life or property or that is imminently 

likely to cause a material adverse effect on the security of, or damage to, PacifiCorp’s electrical system. 

Response: In an emergency situation, all ROW holders have exemptions to any seasonal restrictions to 

conduct necessary repairs.

Comment: REFERENCE: 2.3.6 Minerals Management pg. 2-9 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: A 

description of the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario for future mineral development in 

number 4 describes activities where exceptions to seasonal closure periods would be required. 

SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: PacifiCorp must be allowed access to inspect or repair its structures 

and facilities without vehicle access restrictions. In most situations this will be accomplished by a 4-wheel 

drive service truck or an all terrain vehicle (ATV). If repairs are necessary, the use of larger equipment 

may be required. These vehicles will use existing roads and trails as much as feasible, but in some cases, 

the use of overland travel may be required. Power line construction and maintenance activities should also 

be included in the description of exceptions. 

Response: ROW activities that would typically require an exception during seasonal closure periods 

include road construction or improvement and pipeline, power line, and communication site construction. 

Activities that would be permissible during seasonal closure periods without requiring an exception 

would include daily operations and emergency or nonstandard maintenance. These activities would be 

permissible if operations are confined to an existing ROW, require no longer than 48 to 72 hours to 

complete, are conducted during daylight hours only, and involve no new surface disturbance.

Comment: Transportation, Access and Travel Management REFERENCE: 4.12.1 Transportation and 

Access pg. 4-140 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: This section of the analysis contains the following 

assumptions: • ROW application for energy-related transportation facilities (e.g., roads, pipelines) are 

anticipated to increase. • The effects of designation and development of transportation and utility ROW 

corridors would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: PacifiCorp 

agrees with these assumptions and recommends that the final EIS and RMP include designation of 

additional corridors and guidelines for ROW corridor designation to meet the needs of the upcoming 

permitted energy developments. 

Response: PacifiCorp’s current main power line into Pinedale is identified as a corridor on Map 3-10 of 

the draft EIS, as are several other corridors. Due to the incompatibility of pipelines and power lines, as 

explained to BLM by both industries, trying to designate power line corridors through Minimally 

Developed Areas would be very difficult, and next to impossible in Intensively Developed Fields. Please 

note that the term “Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the 

final EIS.

Pinedale RMP A27-155 
Appendix 27—Lands and Realty Final EIS 

Comment: Transportation, Access and Travel Management REFERENCE: Map 3-10 DESCRIPTION 

OF ISSUE: Transportation, routes and corridors map shows a limited number of designated corridors to 

or within the designated oil and gas development fields. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: NONE 

LISTED.

Response: PacifiCorp’s current main power line into Pinedale is identified as a corridor on Map 3-10 of 

the draft EIS, as are several other corridors. Due to the incompatibility of pipelines and power lines, as 

explained to BLM by both industries, trying to designate power line corridors through Minimally 

Developed Areas would be very difficult, and next to impossible in Intensively Developed Fields. Please 

note that the term “Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the 

final EIS.

Comment: The BLM has not adequately explained or justified the right-of-way (“ROW”) exclusion area 

throughout the Pinedale Resource Area. EnCana owns numerous oil and gas leases in the resource area 

and its ability to develop those leases would be significantly impacted if the BLM inappropriately limits 

EnCana’s ability to access its leases. The BLM must be willing to work with oil and gas lessees and 

operators to design access routes to proposed oil and gas development projects. Further, the creation of 

the ROW exclusion and avoidance areas does not appear to reflect or acknowledge EnCana’s valid and 

existing lease rights or their rights as the operator of Federal units. Alternative 3 would even appear to 

create ROW exclusion areas within the center of Jonah Field, an area that is already developed. While the 

issuance of the oil and gas leases does not guarantee access to the leasehold, a federal lessee is entitled to 

use such part of the surface as may be necessary to produce the leased substance. 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2 

(2006). With respect to approved units, the Interior Board of Land Appeals has noted that “[w]hen a 

federal unit has been approved and the unitized area is producing, rights-of-way are generally not required 

for production facilities and access roads within the unit area. Southern Utah Wilderness Society, et al., 

127 1BLA 331, 372 (1993). 

Response: All valid existing rights will be honored. An adequate range of alternatives is provided for 

analysis purposes. Alternatives 2 and 4 are less restrictive than Alternative 3.

Comment: The BLM has not adequately explained whether the restriction limiting vehicular activities to 

existing roads and trails in sage-grouse habitat and crucial winter range applies to roads and trails existing 

as of the date the RMP is released, or only limits activities to roads and trails existing as of the date a 

particular seasonal stipulation begins. If the BLM intends to prohibit all new ROWs in sage-grouse 

habitat and crucial winter range, it must clearly indicate its intent, and disclose the significant negative 

impacts closing the Pinedale Resource Area to new oil and gas development will have upon the local 

economy. 

Response: The designation “existing roads and trails” does not prohibit the authorization of future 

ROWs.

Comment: PAGE: 2-116, SECTION: 2.5.5, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE b. Utility facilities 

would be restricted to existing routes and designated corridors only where technically feasible and 

practicable; potential routes could be State Highways 189, 191, 350, 351, 352, 353, and 354. New 

corridors could be established as new oil and gas fields are developed (Map 3-10). EXPLANATION: 

RMP omits important issue of technical feasibility.

Response: If it is not technically feasible to restrict a utility to a corridor then it is not practicable. 

Therefore, practicable covers the term technically feasible. 

A27-156 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Lands and Realty 

Comment: Page: 2-117, Recommended Change: Delete ¶f, Explanation: Contradicts maps showing 

existing rights-of-way, Map 2-30. RMP would designate existing corridors as exclusion or avoidance 

areas. This makes no sense. West Wide Energy corridor FEIS shows existing rights-of-way in exclusion 

area entirely. Need to Reconcile West wide Energy Corridor FEIS with RMP. Both should address the 

extent to which corridors meet anticipated demand.

Response: The West Wide Energy Corridor final EIS does not include utility corridors in the Pinedale 

Field Office.

Comment: The DRMP prohibits new corridors for large utility facilities, yet BLM would impose this 

restriction despite the fact that existing energy transportation corridors are already full. This is an 

unreasonable restriction that the final RMP must correct.

Response: The intent is not to restrict, but to designate areas where corridors may occur. 

Comment: Page N2-117: “d. New power lines would be buried to the extent technologically practicable.” 

Recommendations: USQ recommends that the word “economically” be added for the purpose of clarity. 

Number & Issue:

Response: It was not the intent of BLM to allow aboveground lines for economic reasons, but for 

technological ones.

Wind Energy 

Comment: REFERENCE: Sustainable Development DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: Many federal land 

management agencies, including the BLM and the Forest Service, have issued policy statements in regard 

to sustainable development concepts, which include provision for renewable energy resources. The joint 

federal agency explanation of this concept entitled “Sustainable Development and its Influence on Mining 

Operations on Federal Lands” dated April 2002. In the context of resource planning, this document 

describes sustainable development as addressing social, economic and environmental interests. 

SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: PacifiCorp urges the BLM to use these principles and this 

terminology when evaluating alternatives. This is consistent with PacifiCorp’s own vision of 

sustainability as reflected in our environmental respect policy. Where as the BLM does support 

sustainable resource development, the draft RMP states that wind resource development would be 

required to comply with many avoidance restrictions that would limit or curtail renewable resource 

development. PacifiCorp would like to encourage the BLM to reconsider its restrictions and be willing to 

review any future proposals based on the current technology and potential resource impacts.

Response: BLM believes the restrictions the draft EIS places on wind development and other activities 

are appropriate.

Comment: • What is the potential for wind energy development within the Pinedale district? This is an 

issue in adjoining BLM districts, but we do not find it addressed in this draft RMP.

Response: The wind energy potential is briefly described in Chapter 3 of the draft EIS. The potential for 

wind energy development in the planning area is low. For more information please refer to the Wind 

Energy Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (http://windeis.anl.gov/eis/index.cfm). 

Fish and Wildlife, Sensitive Species 

Comment: REFERENCE: Lands and Realty – specific comments L&R management objectives – 

Objective 3 actions, pg. 2-117 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: This objective states: “ New power lines 

Pinedale RMP A27-157 
Appendix 27—Lands and Realty Final EIS 

would be buried to the extent technologically practicable to minimize predation of sage grouse” 

SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: PacifiCorp is opposed to this statement as an overall objective due 

to the associated additional costs, reliability concerns, potential for extended outages and resource 

damages and there is no current scientific data for this area that identifies sage grouse predation is an 

issue or power lines increase predation.

Response: PacifiCorp’s quotation of the draft EIS is mistaken; the document does not state “to minimize 

predation of sage grouse.” BLM is requiring the burying of power lines, when practicable, to minimize 

visual disturbances and to reduce perching sites for raptors that may contribute to the predation of other 

wildlife species.

Comment: REFERENCE: Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management– Objective 2 pgs. 2-143 to 146 

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: This objective is to maintain sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed 

greater sage grouse habitats. Power lines in Intensively Developed Fields are required to be buried for the 

protection of sage grouse and actions are the same for Minimally Developed, No Surface Occupancy 

(NSO) and Unavailable areas SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: PacifiCorp questions the need and 

justification for burying power lines in areas designated for extensive development and not likely to 

contain suitable habitat to support sage grouse. We also oppose the need for the same level of restrictive 

actions in all of the different management areas.

Response: It is reasonable to require actions that would reduce impacts on sensitive species, when 

practicable.

Comment: Lands and Realty – specific comments REFERENCE: Objective 4 – pgs. 2-148 to 149 

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: This objective is to maintain sufficient, undisturbed or minimally disturbed 

sensitive species habitat. In minimally developed areas surface disturbing activities would be avoided in 

white tailed prairie dog towns larger than 12.5 acres and above ground facilities would be equipped with 

anti-raptor perching devices. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: PacifiCorp support the protection of 

sensitive species but doesn’t support the actions recommended for this objective in areas where oils and 

gas development has been approved. There is no scientific data to support the recommendation for “antiraptor perching devices” and recent studies are showing them to be ineffective in keeping raptors off 

power lines.

Response: A study conducted by Kemmerer BLM has shown that anti-raptor perching devices are very 

successful in minimizing raptors’ use of power lines to search for prey, which is the reason why antiraptor perching devices are recommended.

Comment: REFERENCE: Objective 8 - pg 2-151 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: Objective states that 

raptor habitats and territories would be maintained in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA), as outlined in Appendix 18 for bald eagles. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: Appendix 18 

pg. A18-9 needs to be revised to reflect currently proposed management guidelines issued by the USFWS 

and construction standards in the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee’s Suggested Practices for 

Avian Protection on Power Lines: Sate of the art in 2006 

Response: Appendix 18 of the draft EIS is based on recommendations from the USFWS, which 

administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition, page 9 of Appendix 18 states that power lines 

should be constructed to the standards identified by APLIC 1996.

Comment: REFERENCE: Alternatives Summary Table 2-25 pg. 2-163 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: 

Wildlife protection restrictions for raptors in Alterative 4 requires that no surface disturbance or highprofile structures be placed within 1 mile of active nests. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: 

A27-158 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Lands and Realty 

PacifiCorp doesn’t support this restriction because it is more strict than the currently proposed bald eagle 

management guidelines or definition for disturbance and could greatly hinder the ability to construct 

facilities. This restriction doesn’t address the situation where a facility is built during the non-nesting 

season and birds select a site within one mile of the nest facility, construct a nest and lay eggs. An active 

nest is one with eggs or young (for the majority of protected species) as defined and protected under 

MBTA. 

Response: This is a restriction BLM has been using for quite some time and is to protect birds under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Comment: Wildlife and Fisheries REFERENCE: Guidelines for Protection of Sensitive Biological 

Resources DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: Timing and spatial stipulations for sensitive biological resources 

should be regarded as guidelines only and not as definitive dates and distances. A one-size fits all 

approach puts an undo burden on the applicant. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: Although 

PacifiCorp understands the need for developing guidelines to protect sensitive biological resources, site 

and project specific information must be taken into consideration. The Agency should present 

recommendations for controlling surface disturbing and disruptive activities as guidelines, not as 

mandates. 

Response: Under BLM Manual 6840, BLM is required to do more than just recommend that sensitive 

species be protected. The point is to manage sensitive species so that they will not be federally listed.

Comment: REFERENCE: Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines Appendix 2 and 3 DESCRIPTION OF 

ISSUE: These mitigation guidelines provide direction for reducing impacts to wildlife from the various 

RMP alternatives. However, the stipulations for surface disturbance in Appendix 3 is more restrictive than 

those in Appendix 5 for Fluid Minerals. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: There appears to be a 

double standard as to acceptable levels of wildlife impacts and mitigation requirements. The same level of 

mitigation as outlined in Appendix 5 should be applied to all oil and gas development required 

infrastructure.

Response: Alternative 3 is the conservation alternative that is broaching objectives and actions based on 

peer reviewed scientific studies that indicated that the current protection mechanisms are not sufficient. 

The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project development 

scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale. Appendix 3 of the draft EIS has been 

revised in the final EIS.

Comment: REFERENCE: Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management – Objective 2, pg. 2-70 to 72 

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: This objective and associated actions are intended to maintain fish and 

wildlife habitats for Alternative 2. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: PacifiCorp believes that by 

adopting these actions and using them for Alternative 4 it would eliminate much of the double stands 

described above. 

Response: BLM feels that the actions proposed in Alternative 4 are appropriate. 

Comment: REFERENCE: BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species – pgs. 3-123 to 125 DESCRIPTION OF 

ISSUE: This section describes the sensitive species within the resource area and current status. Much of 

the data is old (e.g., sage grouse 1995-99 and pygmy rabbit 1980’s) and may not reflect current status due 

to energy development. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: Significant seasonal operational, 

disturbance or siting restrictions are based on protection of these species or their habitat without a current 

knowledge of their population distribution or habitat abundance. Mitigation measures or siting restrictions 

should be viewed as general recommendations until data is updated. 

Pinedale RMP A27-159 
Appendix 27—Lands and Realty Final EIS 

Response: The best available population data were used. Under BLM Manual 6840, BLM is required to 

do more than just recommend that sensitive species be protected. The point is to manage sensitive species 

so that they will not be federally listed. BLM is conducting current baseline studies for BLM sensitive 

species to eliminate this concern.

Comment: REFERENCE: Wildlife and Fish Habitat 4.17.3, pgs. 182 to 183 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: 

This section describes impacts common to all alternatives and states “Above ground ROW actions, such 

as communication sites and power lines would have long term impacts. These types of permanent 

structures are particularly hazardous to avian wildlife because of the potential for collision or 

electrocution.” “ Impacts from ROW-approved actions such as power lines, communication sites and 

wind turbines, would increase injury and death to bats, raptors and other migratory birds as a result of 

collision.” SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: PacifiCorp disagrees with these statements and thinks 

they should be removed because it is required to construct and maintain its faculties to minimize impacts 

to avian resources in compliance with its internal environmental governances and ROW permitting 

stipulations. 

Response: BLM cannot always mitigate all impacts, and despite Avian Power Line Interaction 

Committee design standards, bats and raptors are still electrocuted. Some of these issues stem from 

location of the structure (e.g., in migration corridors). Power lines and other such facilities are placed in 

the area of human need, sometimes independent of migratory issues; therefore, the impacts analysis is 

valid. 

Comment: REFERENCE: Impacts Under Alternative 4 4.17.7, pg. 4-209 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: 

Requirement to prohibit wind development within 3 miles of sage grouse leks, raptor concentration routes 

or migratory bird routes to minimize collisions. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: The BLM should 

use this as a recommendation and not a siting stipulation during evaluations of potential renewable 

resource proposals. 

Response: There have been several studies nationwide based on the effects of placement of wind 

facilities. This recommendation is based on the results of these impacts.

Comment: PAGE: 2-116, SECTION: 2.5.5., RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE e. [Realty actions 

that would protect wildlife migration routes would be considered] (strikeout). Public lands would be 

retained to facilitate migration corridors [provide for free movement of migrating big game animals 

at]:(strikeout) EXPLANATION: Local governments object to any land acquisition. The tax base is 

already hurt by the percentage of federal ownership. Unlike other western states, the revenue distribution 

system in Wyoming does not assure that communities have revenues to address the increased demand for 

community services. Eviscerating the tax base by acquiring additional private land is even more 

problematic. Also it is inaccurate to suggest that big game animals are “constricted” through public land 

migration corridors when the animals primarily use private lands, largely because that is where the water 

is. If the maps were to include a private land layer, it would be apparent there is no “bottleneck” or 

constriction. This inaccuracy is repeated throughout the RMP and should be corrected.

Response: This action does not imply land acquisition, but retention of lands already administered by 

BLM. The word used is “retained”, not “acquired”. Big game migration corridors and bottlenecks within 

the planning area are well documented. Most of the big game migration corridors extend beyond private 

land and onto state and federal lands, in some cases for hundreds of miles. Many migration corridors have 

been compromised, abandoned, or restricted (bottlenecked) because of development on federal and 

private lands. 

A27-160 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Lands and Realty 

Visual Resources 

Comment: Visual Resource Management (VRM) REFERENCE: 2.4.4 Alternative 4 pg. 2-20 

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: The integrity of the visual setting of the national historic trails would be 

protected from surface disturbance. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: The designation of visual 

buffer zones for a minimum distance of 2 miles on either side of national historic trails or redesigning a 

project to conform to the classification of a VRM Class II designation may be unrealistic within the 

designated oil and gas development fields. PacifiCorp supports the 1⁄4 mile or visual horizon restriction as 

proposed in Alternative 1 (pg. 2-44). Large and highly visible exploratory and development structures, 

power line, support roads, and other facilities are necessary yet to some segments of the population may 

be considered as impairing the quality of scenic (visual) values. 

Response: It is appropriate to have a long-term goal of protecting the visual integrity of these resources. 

The text has been revised to clarify that the Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II designation 

applies to contributing segments of the historic trails.

Comment: REFERENCE: 3.14.3 Visual Resource Management System, pg. 3-106 DESCRIPTION OF 

ISSUE: Use of VRM tools to manage visual values within the RMP planning area is an accepted process. 

However VRM classifications are not consistent across boundaries between the Pinedale and Rock 

Springs BLM Field Offices. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: PacifiCorp’s support of the VRM 

process is based on the need for consistency between field offices and context that the placement of 

certain electrical facilities within both Pinedale and Rock Springs Resource Areas is both necessary and 

consistent with the multiple use concepts embodied within the RMP.

Response: VRM classifications have been made consistent across the field office boundary to the extent 

possible.

Other Land and Realty Issues 

Comment: Because these values are so unique, we, as a community, are trying to conserve large portions 

of private land in the area through the use of conservation easements. For example, the Green River 

Valley Land Trust worked with nearly 40 families to conserve nearly 20,0000 acres to date and hopes to 

double that by the end of this year. Leasing the federal minerals makes this difficult and affects the ability 

to raise funds to do so.

Response: BLM has considered the conservation activities of local landowners in refining the alternatives 

in the final EIS. The areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing have been updated in the final EIS. 

Comment: Item: Page 1-9, Section 1.4.2, General Planning Criteria “The planning decisions in the RMP 

will apply only to the BLM-administered public land surface and mineral estate in the planning area, 

including BLM-administered minerals that underlie nonfederal lands (split estate).” Comment: The RMP 

should identify any standards recommended by cooperating agencies that may differ from the standards 

that those agencies apply to nonfederal lands under their jurisdiction. It should be clear to the public 

where substantial additional requirements are placed on activities on federal land by state and local 

governments. 

Response: The policies and land use plans of the cooperating and other state, federal, and local agencies 

are not going to be reproduced in the RMP. The requirements of state and local governments apply to all 

lands, not just federal lands.

Comment: PAGE: 2-120, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Replace prohibition with waste 

disposal sites owned by local governments. f. [On-lease water disposal pits would not be allowed.] 

Pinedale RMP A27-161 
Appendix 27—Lands and Realty Final EIS 

(strikeout) Lands identified as suitable for disposal will be conveyed upon request to local governments 

for purposes of developing produced water disposal sites. EXPLANATION: See Comment #66.

Response: Most lands suitable for on-lease water disposal pits would not meet the disposal criteria in 

Appendix 13 of the draft EIS. If a parcel did meet both FLPMA and Appendix 13 criteria, the only 

instrument available to sell public land for commercial purposes is a Section 203 FLPMA sale on a 

competitive basis. If sold under a competitive basis, there is no guarantee who would submit the highest 

bid and what purpose the lands would be used for. Language regarding water disposal pits has been 

revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: PAGE: 4.36, SECTION: 4.5.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD The lands available for 

lease or disposal will include areas suitable for OHV recreation, such as desert riding in Granite Wash or 

Clay Dunes. EXPLANATION: Local governments will pursue leases or patent under R&PPA in order to 

meet recreation demand for OHV areas. Otherwise, users turned away from public and National Forest 

System lands will trespass on private land.

Response: OHV recreation areas are being considered in response to other comments received. It is not 

necessary to process R&PP actions in order to provide for OHV use areas. R&PP actions are limited to 

640 acres.

Comment: Under either Alternative 3 or 4 the Department of the Interior would be required to comply 

with the formal withdrawal requirements imposed by FLPMA. Under FLPMA a withdrawal is defined as: 

withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the 

general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public 

values in the area or reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring 

jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than “property” governed by the Federal Property and 

Administrative Services Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 472) from one department, bureau or agency to 

another department, bureau or agency. 

43 U.S.C. § 1702(j) (2006). If Alternative 3 is selected, the BUM would make a total of 711,920 acres 

unavailable to oil and gas leasing and, under Alternative 4, a total of 174,410 acres unavailable for oil and 

gas leasing. Because such decisions constitute a withdrawal, the Department of the Interior will be 

required to comply with the procedural provisions of Section 204 FLPMA. 43 U.S.C. § 1714 (2006), 

Among other things, only the Secretary of the Interior - or a designee in the Secretary’s office appointed 

by the President and confirmed by the Senate - has the authority to make withdrawals of federal “ands. 

43, U.S.C. § 1714(a) (2006). The Secretary is also required to provide notice of the proposed withdrawal 

in the Federal Register and conduct hearings regarding the withdrawal. 43 U.S.C. § 1714(b)(1) and (h). 

Finally, the Secretary is required to notify both houses of Congress of specific information relating to the 

proposed withdrawal. See 43 C.F.R. §§ 1610.6; 43 U.S.C. § 1714(c)(2). 

Response: BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP.

Comment: Page: 2-122, Recommended Change: Add the following: BLM will request that the public 

lands in the area be withdrawn. Explanation: BLM cannot classify areas as unavailable to mineral leasing 

without also securing a withdrawal. BLM argument that it can use land use classification (§202(e)) in lieu 

of (§204) is legally incorrect. More accurate to describe WSAs closed to oil and gas by statute rather than 

non-discretionary. A rule could require closure and be nondiscretionary. The broad use of unavailable for 

leasing has a number of legal and factual problems: inversely condemns state leases and interferes with 

state school land revenues and administration; inversely condemns existing leases interferes with and 

inversely condemns private lands. Drainage guidance does not conform to IM and will make this area 

A27-162 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Lands and Realty 

vulnerable much like what occurred in eastern Wyoming when BLM did not lease at the request of the 

Forest Service and development proceeded on private land. 

The decision itself is entirely arbitrary and capricious, because it is based on Highway 191 not on geology 

or any other relevant factor. FLPMA defines appropriate consideration for withdrawals, 43 U.S.C. 

§1714(c), and here again the grounds for the withdrawal fall far short of statutory considerations. 

The unavailable leasing area does not adequately address the risk of drainage, because the development 

causing the drainage will not necessarily be a federal lessee upon which BLM can force the drilling of a 

protective well. Nor do the rules give BLM the authority to force a company to buy a lease and thus pay 

royalties. As BLM discovered in eastern Wyoming, it is difficult to determine either the amounts or the 

developer that actually effected the drainage. 

Response: BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP.

Comment: Page: 4.72, Section: 4.7.1, Recommended Change: REVISE per withdrawal Explanation: 

Withdrawal may not be approved given contradictions with other resource mandates. It appears that this is 

the reason that BLM is attempting to avoid withdrawal procedures. The assumption that elk management 

requires seasonal closure is contradicted with experience in Nitchey Ridge to the south. See Taylor 

(2005). 

Response: BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP.

Comment: Page: 2-122, Recommended Change: Objective 4 (Unavailable Areas) Withdraw Make 

federal lands and minerals from mineral leasing as depicted on Map 2-9 unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing [(156,900] (strikeout) acres). Explanation: As explained a year ago, BLM lacks the discretion not 

to follow FLPMA mandates as they apply to withdrawal of federal land. BLM may have discretion to 

decide not to issue a lease but FLPMA does not give BLM discretion not to follow withdrawal rules. See 

Comment # 9, 27. The local governments also note that the basis for closing the 156,900 acres is largely 

arbitrary (e.g. east of Highway 191) and fails to meet criteria imposed in FLPMA for a withdrawal. One 

of the stated reasons is for a U.S. Air Force seismic monitoring station. A withdrawal requires action in 

accord with 43 U.S.C. § 1714. Resource Associates of Alaska, 114 IBLA 216, 219(1990). This is 

precisely why BLM followed FLPMA’s withdrawal procedures in proposing to modify the same public 

land originally withdrawn for the purpose of a weather station. 51 Fed. Reg. 1859 (1986) (proposed 

changing the purpose of the withdrawal to a seismological site and proposed continuing the existing 

withdrawals for an additional 5-year period). The exclusion area, therefore, needs to be withdrawn in 

accordance with FLPMA. 

Response: The Wind River Front management area is intended to address other resource needs, not just 

those of the USAF Detachment. 

BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP. 

Comment: Page: G-7 Change: Easement–[ A right afforded a person or agency to make limited use of 

another’s real property for access or other purposes. ](STRIKEOUT) An easement is an interest in land 

which entitles the easement holder to a limited use or enjoyment over another person’s property 

Explanation: The legal definition of easement established under state law should be used because it is 

controlling. Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068, 1083 (10 Cir. th . 1988). Suggested language is taken 

verbatim from Wyoming common law. Owsley v. Robinson, 65 P.3d 374, 377 (Wy. 2003). 

Response: BLM has determined that a definition of “easement” is not necessary in the FEIS. 

Pinedale RMP A27-163 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

Livestock Grazing 

General Comment Responses: No GCRs are associated with this category.

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes 

Comment: Chapter 4 Page 41 Commentor WGFD We recommend replacing 7th paragraph (“Closing 

treated area....”) with the following language, “Treated lands should be protected from grazing by 

domestic livestock for at least two years or until the BLM determines that grasses have become fully 

established to control surface runoff and sedimentation.”

Response: Chapter 4 deals with disclosing the impacts of management actions, not establishing them. 

The suggested wording has been added to Chapter 2, Proposed Plan, under Vegetation, where grazing 

management of vegetation treatments is discussed. 

Comment: PAGE: 4.38, SECTION: 4.6.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Applying 

appropriate guidelines to grazing operations to comply with the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland 

Health would affect livestock operators on those allotments for which there is a formal determination of 

not meeting the Standards for reasons attributable to grazing. Such adjustments could include season-ofuse changes, forage allocation reductions, implementation of grazing management practices (e.g., 

growing season deferment, riparian pastures, and exclosures), forage utilization limits, and conversions in 

kind or type of livestock. EXPLANATION: Handbook requires determination that grazing is the cause of 

any failure to meet or maintain standards. H- 4180.2 App. C.

Response: This text has been updated in the final EIS. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-40, SECTION: 4.6.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Water developments designed 

to provide new water sources for wildlife and livestock would increase water availability for all grazing 

animals, [livestock,] (STRIKEOUT) and would promote improved distribution of both livestock and 

wildlife. Large reservoirs capable of supporting fisheries provide a reliable source of water to livestock 

and wildlife through drought periods. Protection of springs, seeps, and adjacent riparian areas from 

grazing animals provides cleaner and more dependable water sources for all grazing animals [livestock.] 

(STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Changes balance paragraph.

Response: This section portrays impacts on the livestock grazing program. Impacts to wildlife habitats 

are discussed in Section 4.17 of the draft EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-1 CHANGE: ACTUAL USE – The amount of animal unit months consumed by 

livestock based on the numbers of livestock and grazing dates submitted by the livestock operator [and 

confirmed by periodic field checks by the BLM.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Actual use definition 

in grazing regulations does not provide for periodic field checks and RMP definition should conform. 

Regulations require an actual use report submitted by permittee or lessee. 43 C.F.R. § 4100.0-5.

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-1 CHANGE: ALLOTMENT – An area of land designated and managed for 

livestock grazing where one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. EXPLANATION: Per 43 

C.F.R. § 4100.0-5, definition should clearly state that land is designated for livestock use.

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS. 

A27-164 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing 

Comment: PAGE: G-2 CHANGE: ANIMAL UNIT MONTH – A standardized unit of measurement of 

the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one animal unit for 1 month; [also a unit of 

measurement that represents the privilege of grazing one animal unit for 1 month](STRIKEOUT) 

EXPLANATION: Second part of the definition is inaccurate and should be deleted. The grazing permit 

and preference represent the grazing privilege, not AUMs. 43 C.F.R. § 4100.0-5.

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-9 CHANGE: GRAZING PREFERENCE – The total number of AUMs on public 

land apportioned and attached to base property owned or controlled by a permittee, lessee, or an applicant 

for a permittee or lessee. Grazing preference includes active use and use held in suspension. Grazing 

preference holders have a superior or priority position against others for the purpose of receiving a 

grazing permit or lease. EXPLANATION: Definition does not adequately define grazing preference and 

should be revised to conform to BLM grazing regulations 43 C.F.R. § 4100.0-5. The revised regulation 

makes the definition of grazing preference similar to the definition adopted in 1978, 68 Fed. Reg. 68452 

(2003), and reflects the consistent policy and practice of the Grazing Service and later the BLM up until 

the 1995 changes.

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-18 CHANGE: PREFERENCE - Grazing privileges established following passage 

of the Taylor Grazing Act, based on the adjudication of the grazing use of the Federal range during the 

priority period. The preference in most cases was adjusted to reflect wildlife needs. The active preference 

and suspended preference together make up the total grazing preference EXPLANATION: Definition 

lacks important historical detail and should be revised accordingly. See Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 

529 U.S. 728, 735 (2000) (citing 1937 Rules for the Administration of Grazing Districts); Natural 

Resources and Environment, Rangeland Reform Revisited (Summer 2003).

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-19 CHANGE: RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS - An authorized physical 

modification or treatment which [Any activity or program on or relating to rangelands 

that](STRIKEOUT) is designed to improve forage. . . EXPLANATION: Per 43 C.F.R. § 4100.-5, a range 

improvement is not an “activity or program” but a physical modification or treatment.

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-19 CHANGE: RANGE TREND - The direction of change in range condition over 

time, as measured by monitoring data, either toward or away from desired management objectives. 

EXPLANATION: Definition is incomplete and needs to be revised to conform to BLM grazing 

regulations, 43 C.F.R. § 4200.0- 5 (definitions of trend and monitoring).

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-21 CHANGE: SEASON OF USE - A livestock grazing permit term and condition 

identifying [t](STRIKEOUT)The time during which livestock graze a given area[, and is manipulated to 

achieve resource objectives](STRIKEOUT) determined by the BLM to achieve management and resource 

condition objectives. EXPLANATION: Per 43 C.F.R. §§ 4130.03, 4130.3-1.

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS. 

Pinedale RMP A27-165 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

Alternatives 

Comment: Our family as stockmen, ranches, and wildlife managers recommend alternative #3 with one 

exception-that no punitive decreases in animal unit grazing be left in alternative #3. It is counter intuitive 

to diminish or risk economic disaster through diminishing AUs as cattle and sheep are the major 

management tools for the BLM as it deals with the numerous specifies of concern on our state sage brush 

steppes. If the gas industry/BLM uses the economic viability of the grazer they will lose their only 

significant management tool for wildlife and sagebrush health. 

Alternative #4 plays out the creation of conflict between grazing and drilling by being the most 

destructive alternative for the grazers. Short of restoring the AUs to alternative #3 the only other 

alternative is #4 which through development activity puts pressure on the habitat utilized by wildlife and 

grazers for managing the sage brush steppe. To avoid the lists of current species of concern you must 

keep a healthily ungulate grazing structure in place. 

Response: It is reasonable to analyze an alternative that would close allotments in the active gas fields. 

This was placed in Alternative 3 as the most restrictive alternative, not as an attempt to pit interest groups 

against each other. BLM can choose elements from any alternative in formulating the Proposed Plan in 

the final EIS.

Comments on RMP Livestock Grazing Analysis 

Comment: Chapter 2 Page 118 Commentor WGFD As an Action, we recommend that a defined number 

of AMPs be targeted for completion on a yearly basis. Furthermore, we recommend that priority be given 

to those allotments located within Intensively Developed Fields. 

Response: As experienced in the former Pinedale RMP, scheduling a specific number of allotment 

management plans (AMPs) is not realistic. Currently, mitigation efforts, such as in the Jonah Interagency 

Office, are addressing landscapes within and adjacent to developing fields. 

Comment: The effects of different livestock grazing intensities on forage plant production was studied in 

a ponderosa pine type in Colorado as early as the 1940’s (Schwan et al, 1949). This study showed that 

forage consumption at a rate of 57% produced an average of twice as much forage as a rate of 71%. An 

area left ungrazed by livestock for 7 years produced three times as much forage as the 71% use area. The 

authors concluded that, as grazing use increased, forage production decreased. During that same period, 

Dyksterhuis (1949), in a classic paper on the use of quantitative ecology in range management, presented 

examples of how stocking rates must be adjusted based on precipitation and range condition, which 

included a rating based on departure from the potential plant community. NRCS (USDA, 1982) considers 

proper grazing management as that management that sustains the potential plant community. 

The effects of conservative (30 – 35%) use vs. heavy (60 – 65%) grazing use on grasses and forbs by 

cattle was determined in a New Mexico study (Galt et al, 1999). Both of these pastures had experienced 

conservative use for over 10 years. In 1997, one pasture was changed to heavy use. This study showed 

that heavy stocking rates resulted in serious declines in productivity in the succeeding year. Perennial 

grass production was reduced by 57% and forbs by 41% in the heavily grazed pasture compared to the 

conservatively grazed pasture. The authors cited a number of other studies in arid environments that 

showed heavy stocking rates were accompanied by decreases in forage production when compared to 

conservative use. After drought, the ability of forage plants to recover was directly related to the standing 

crop levels maintained during the dry period. The studies cited showed that grazing during different 

seasons was less important than grazing intensity. 

A27-166 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing 

Five long-term stocking rate studies from three different locations in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah 

documented similar patterns (Holechek et al 1999a). In the Desert Experimental Range in Utah, a 13-year 

study with moderate (35%) and heavy (60%) use by sheep resulted in annual forage production of 198 

lbs/acre and 72 lbs/acre. The authors recommended 25 – 30% use of all forage species. A 10-year study at 

the Santa Rita Range in Arizona demonstrated that perennial grass cover and yield showed an inverse 

relationship to grazing intensity, while burroweed, an undesirable species, increased with increasing 

forage use. The authors recommended a 40% use level. A 37-year study at the Jornada Experimental 

range in New Mexico involving conservative (33%) and moderate (45%) use showed that the lower 

grazing intensity resulted in greater black grama (perennial grass) cover. Lowland areas with high clay 

content and periodic flooding grazed at moderate intensity had higher cover of Tobosa, a perennial grass, 

than heavily grazed areas. They recommended 30% be used as a stocking intensity with no more than 

40% removed in any year. A 10-year study at the Chihuihuan Desert Rangeland Research Center looked 

at four grazing intensities of 25%, 35%, 50% and 60%. Light (25%) and moderate (35%) use produced 

70% more forage than 50% use and more than double that achieved at 60% use. Here, the author 

recommended conservative stocking at 30 – 35%. 

Hutchings and Stewart (1953), suggested that 25 – 30 % use of all forage species by livestock was proper. 

They recommended this level because routinely stocking at capacity will result in overgrazing in half the 

years and necessitate heavy use of supplemental feed. Even with this system, they recognized that 

complete destocking would be needed in 2 or 3 out of ten years. Holechek et al (1999a) concluded that the 

research is remarkably consistent in showing that conservative grazing at 30 – 35% use of forage will 

give higher livestock productivity and financial returns than stocking at grazing capacity. They also 

recognized that consumption by rodents and other wildlife must be taken into account as part of this 

utilization, otherwise, rangeland productivity would suffer even at these levels of use. Galt et al (2000) 

recommended levels of 25% utilization for livestock and 25% for wildlife with 50% remaining for 

watershed protection. In none of these cases have the scientists recommended 50% utilization by 

livestock and they are clear that even at the lower use levels recommended, allowance for wildlife use 

must be included in overall use.

Response: Appropriate grazing use levels are determined on a site-specific allotment or pasture basis 

depending on the vegetation type and condition, other uses, and other information pertinent to the area.

Comment: Schulz and Leininger (1990) studied long-term riparian exclosures compared to areas that 

continued to be grazed. They found that, after 30 years, willow canopy cover was 8.5 times greater in 

livestock exclosures than in adjacent grazed riparian areas. Grasses were 4 to 6 times greater in cover 

within the exclosure than outside. Mean peak standing crop of grasses within the exclosure was 2,410 

Kg/Ha, while outside in caged plots, mean peak standing crop was 1,217 Kg/Ha. 

Often cited, Franklin Crider’s study on root growth stoppage from plant top removal provided 

quantitative measurements of plant re-growth under different amounts of removal (Crider 1955). Three 

mid-west perennial grasses were grown from seed in pots under ideal conditions of watering and 

fertilization. After sixty days of growth, these potted grasses were clipped once at intervals from 10% to 

90% of the above ground biomass. Repeat clippings of the potted grasses were made every two days to 

return the plants to the same height as the original clipped percent. The experiment lasted thirty three days 

at which time root growth of controls became inhibited by the size of the pot. Crider concluded that under 

these ideal growing conditions, if these species of grasses had 40% or less of their aboveground biomass 

clipped either once or many times, then the net root mass was the same or more at the end of the 

experiment. This was used to make the assumption that grazing during the entire growing season at 40% 

or less would sustain plants from one season to the next. This same study has been used to justify the 50% 

or “take half/leave half” proposition that range managers have used for decades. Clearly, the long-term 

range studies cited here show that under actual field conditions, these use levels are excessive and light 

Pinedale RMP A27-167 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

grazing (25% or less by livestock) is most appropriate to meet BLM’s mandate for sustainable use. Any 

alternative chosen for the RMP needs to include this information. 

Response: Appropriate grazing use levels are determined on a site-specific allotment or pasture basis 

depending on the vegetation type and condition, other uses, and other information pertinent to the area.

Comment: The RMP does not lay out any strategy for drought. During adverse precipitation conditions, 

forage production is reduced, yet the RMP does not analyze actual use by livestock over the past planning 

period in relation to precipitation to demonstrate that it has employed management guidance or drought 

standards that de-stock allotments in proportion to the reduction in forage production. In a review of 

drought effects and management, a Prescott National Forest biologist has shown the need for de-stocking 

and rest to maintain plant communities during dry and drought conditions and the irreversible loss of soil 

that can occur. 

Without specification of grazing regimes to allow for below normal and drought conditions, sensitive 

species of native grass such as Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass and others can lose vigor, productivity 

and be lost over time unless proper stocking and rest are employed to maintain these plants. Failure to do 

so is in violation of the impairment provision of FLPMA. 

Research has provided guidance on this matter. Grazing and rest requirements for key species of grass can 

be critical. Native cool season perennial bunchgrasses can be very sensitive to defoliation and growing 

season use. For example, Anderson (1991) stated in regards to bluebunch wheatgrass: “Effects of growing 

season defoliation injury are well documented: basal area, stemnumbers and both root and forage yields 

are reduced and mortality can be high. ... Defoliation to very short stubble heights during the boot stage 

has been reported to essentially eliminate plants within as few as three years. ... Vigor recovery has been 

found to require most of a decade, even with complete protection from grazing.” 

The author went on to describe experiments in which a single clipping of the grass during the growing 

season produced 43% less herbage and 95% fewer flower stalks the following year than unclipped plants. 

Under a deferred system in eastern Oregon, it was reported that bluebunch wheatgrass could not be 

maintained at 30 – 40% use in the boot stage (early June). A one time removal of 50% of the shoot system 

during active growth may require six years’ rest even in an area with 17” precipitation. 

Anderson (1991) also makes the point regarding bluebunch wheatgrass that, “The belief that range 

improvement will occur after one or two years of rest following a single season of more than ‘light’ use 

during the growing season is erroneous.” Mueggler (1975) also determined that Idaho fescue of 

moderately low vigor required 3 years of rest for recovery and that plants of bluebunch wheatgrass and 

Idaho fescue in very low vigor may require 8 years and 6 years of rest, respectively for recovery. BLM 

failed to consider the recovery, growth and maintenance requirements for these sensitive native grasses. 

The RMP should specify that seasons of use should be shortened and stocking numbers reduced and 

prescribe that forage utilization limits should be lowered in times of drought. The RMP should employ 

the Standard Precipitation Index (SPI), as this is an objective standard based on measurements of external 

data. Such a methodology provides a consistent means of addressing drought conditions through scientific 

analysis, and would allow the BLM to make important decisions about protecting native ecosystems in 

times of severe stress in an objective manner. 

We refer BLM to the following publications that provide guidance for managing rangelands, before, 

during and after drought: 

A27-168 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing 

Box, Thadis W. 1967. Influence of Drought and Grazing on mortality of Five West Texas Grasses. 

Ecology Volume 48, Issue 4 (July 1967), 654-656. 

Chamrad, Albert D. and Thadis W. Box. 1965. Drought Associated Mortality of Range Grasses in South 

Texas. Ecology Volume 46, Issue 6 (Nov. 1965), 780-785. 

McMinn, Robert G. 1952. The Role of Soil Drought in the Distribution of vegetation in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains. Ecology Volume 33 (Jan 1952), 1-15. 

University of Arizona Cooperative Extension. Rangeland Management Before, During, and After 

Drought. ag.arizona.edu/pubs/natresources/az1136.pdf These publications and the direction therein should 

be included in the RMP.

Response: In the past, drought periods and management of livestock in response to drought have been 

sufficiently handled on an as-needed basis. This approach is supported in 43 CFR 4100.

Comment: Forage Consumption by Livestock. The RMP failed to analyze the current and potentially 

available forage to satisfy the forage consumption by the number of livestock it currently permits or 

proposes to permit. 

The Society for Range Management (SRM) in 1974 defined an Animal Unit “to be one mature (1000 lb.) 

cow or the equivalent based upon average daily forage consumption of 26 lbs. dry matter per day.”11. 

SRM also defined an Animal Unit Month as “The amount of feed or forage required by an animal-unit for 

one month.” NRCS defined the forage demand for a 1,000 pound cow as 26 pounds of oven-dry weight or 

30 pounds air-dry weight of forage per day12. It is important to ensure that forage consumption rates by 

livestock are based on the size of animals present on the allotment and a reasoned estimate of their daily 

consumption rates. The following analysis provides some background and justifies a more current forage 

consumption rate for cow/calf pairs. It is BLM’s obligation to ensure this forage is accurately accounted 

for as this is its fiduciary duty to the American People. 

The University of Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station published a report on cattle production in 

194314 (Brennan and Harris, 1943). That report analyzed 14 years of ranch operation for eleven ranches 

in northeastern Nevada. At that time, a mature cow was considered one unit and a branded calf or weaner 

as 1⁄2 cow unit, for a combined total of 1.5 cow units per cow/calf pair. Bulls were considered 1.5 cow 

units. For the period 1938 – 1940, the average turnoff weight (when they left the range) of mature cows 

was 959 pounds, calves were 381 pounds and bulls were 1222 pounds. This means that in the 1930’s, a 

cow/calf pair was 1340 pounds. With breeding, supplements and hormones, weights have increased over 

time, for example, Anderson et al (ca 2000) calculated a 35% increase in dressed weights per animal 

between 1975 and 1995. 

USDA market statistics give the average weights of slaughter cattle for the week ending August 14, 2004 

as 1251 pounds. The estimate for the same week in 2005 for slaughter cattle average weight was 1260 

pounds. The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service data for average live weight of cattle 

slaughtered in 2004 was 1242 pounds compared to 1187 pounds in 1995, or an increase of nearly 8.5% in 

those 10 years. The Livestock Monitor is a newsletter produced by the North Dakota State University 

Extension Service Livestock Marketing Information Center in cooperation with USDA State Extension 

Services. The Livestock Monitor shows for the week ending August 6, 2005, live weights of slaughter 

cattle averaged 1258 pounds. 

The potential weights of mature cows can be even larger than these numbers. For example, NRCS in its 

National Range and Pasture Handbook, referenced above, defines body condition scores. A body 

Pinedale RMP A27-169 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

condition score of 6 which is described as “Good, smooth appearance throughout. Some fat deposits in 

brisket and over the tailhead. Ribs covered and back appears rounded.” This body condition score relates 

to a pregnancy percentage of 88%, which is important as a goal for cow/calf operations as dry cows are 

usually culled and replaced and the weight gain of calves is important for income. According to Dr. Larry 

W. Olson, Extension Animal Scientist at Clemson University, a medium frame cow in body condition 

score 6 could easily weigh 1300 – 1400 pounds. 

Holechek et al (2001) summarized the weaning weights of calves grazed on various types of rangelands at 

different stocking rates. The data for the period since 1990 produced an average weaning weight of 430 

pounds and a range of 382 – 475 pounds. 

Ray et al (2004) gave a weaning weight of 480 pounds for calves. Using the current market statistics for 

slaughter cattle at about 1250 pounds and assuming a calf weight of 300 pounds to allow for weight gain 

during the grazing season, an estimate for the average weight of a cow/calf pair during the grazing season 

of 1,500 pounds seems reasonable. 

As pointed out above, the NRCS used 26 lbs/day of oven dry weight for a 1,000 pound cow and stated 

this was equivalent to 30 pounds per day air-dry weight. The NRCS Range and Pasture Handbook value 

of 30 pounds air-dry weight would be 3% of body weight for a 1,000 pound cow. Applying this to the 

estimate of a current weight of 1,500 pounds for a cow/calf pair, the daily forage consumption would be 

45 lbs of airdry forage per day, or for a month (30.4 days), 1368 pounds of forage per AUM. 

The forage needs for domestic sheep must also be determined. Based on current USDA published weights 

for ewes and lambs, adult domestic sheep weigh from 165 to 440 pounds , and lambs about 129 pounds. 

A low-end estimate of the weights of a sheep and two lambs grazing on these allotments would be 400 

pounds (200 pounds for the ewe and 100 pounds each for two lambs). The forage consumption rate for 

sheep given in the 1964 R4 Range Analysis Handbook cited above was 3.3% of body weight per day 

consumed as air dry forage weight. Using these estimated weights of mature sheep (ewes) and lambs with 

two lambs per ewe and a total weight of 400 pounds would result in forage consumption of 13.2 pounds 

per day for each mature sheep with two lambs, or 6.6 pounds per day for a mature ewe weighing 200 

pounds. 

Forage consumption rates must be calculated based on the current weights and consumption rates of 

livestock in order to provide the forage needed for wildlife, plant community sustainability and watershed 

protection and to ensure the public trust is not violated by undercharging for the actual weights of cattle 

and calves grazed. 

The RMP Preferred Alternative proposes to graze 107,536 AUMs. However, that is based on an AUM 

equivalent to 800 lbs of forage per month. The most current information, reviewed above shows that 

number to be 1368 lbs/month per AUM. Therefore, if sufficient forage were available to satisfy all needs, 

the numbers of livestock grazed should be reduced to account for the increases in weight and correct the 

erroneous assumption that 800 lbs/month is an accurate consumption figure. 

Using the ratio between the RMP forage amount per AUM divided by the correct figure above, gives a 

needed reduction in permitted numbers and or seasons to account for the RMP’s understated forage 

consumption, without accounting for wildlife, plant and watershed needs. 

Furthermore, the RMP does not calculate the amount of forage and residual plant matter needed for 

wildlife, plant community and watershed protection while it assumes continuing to graze these large 

numbers of livestock allows forage to exist for big game and other species. 

A27-170 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing 

No criteria is offered for spring, summer and fall forage needs, which are not predominantly shrubs, but 

herbaceous vegetation. No evidence of past monitoring or compliance with any of the suggested criteria 

for wildlife is included in the RMP or combined in an analysis of wildlife populations or habitat quality to 

ascertain the role past management of BLM lands has had on these attributes. 

The RMP does not reveal the inherent conflicts between livestock and wildlife. While it calls for seasonal 

habitat restriction on fawning habitat and winter range closures, it does not account for the effects of its 

failure to accommodate deer and elk during spring, summer and fall. 

Hiding cover for fawns decreased more rapidly when cattle were present. This subjects fawns to higher 

predation rates. When no cattle were present, deer selected more meadow-riparian habitat. When cattle 

were present, deer selected home ranges with less meadow-riparian habitat. With heavy stocking, deer 

moved into montane shrub habitat. They also increased the size of their home ranges in the presence of 

cattle. While preferring aspen groves when not grazed by cattle, their use fell significantly when cattle 

were present. In the absence of livestock, deer preferred meadow riparian habitat. During moderate 

livestock grazing, deer moved into montane shrub habitat and used aspen habitat only when no cattle 

were present. Habitat shifts in deer and elk populations occur, placing stress on these wildlife populations. 

Response: Site-specific analyses and allocations of resources are not within the scope of the RMP.

Comment: PAGE: 4.37, SECTION: 4.6.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE to REMOVE 

Cumulative effect text [• Population increases in the Upper Green River Valley would result in additional 

subdivision of ranchlands. • Population increases in the Upper Green River Valley would result in 

increased recreational use within grazing allotments.] (STRIKEOUT) Instead Increased regulation of 

public land, including ESA issues, predators, WGFD restrictions on grazing operations, and demand for 

housing would encourage the sale and subdivision of ranches. Loss of ranches to subdivision will see a 

correlative loss of open space and winter habitat for wildlife and reduced recreation access. 

EXPLANATION: These are cumulative effects not assumptions relevant to livestock grazing.

Response: It is reasonable to assume that population increases are not entirely due to actions of BLM, as 

they are occurring throughout the West. The cumulative impacts of increasing population, economic 

changes, and subdivision of lands are discussed in Chapter 4.

Comment: PAGE: 4.38, SECTION: 4.6.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Impacts from 

livestock grazing would primarily be related to annual forage removal by grazing livestock and are 

similar to those by other game species. Pasture and herd rotational grazing and other BMPs are intended 

to improve livestock dispersal throughout the pasturelands; to control the season, duration, and intensity 

of grazing; and to achieve range condition objectives.

Response: This section’s intent is to describe impacts of livestock grazing. Impacts of wildlife on 

livestock grazing are discussed later in this section (page 4-40, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the draft EIS).

Comment: PAGE: 4.45, SECTION: 4.6.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Range improvements would 

be evaluated for their impact on the viewshed of the Lander Trail. These restrictions could inhibit 

construction of fences and water developments, which would potentially alter grazing management and 

result in a reduction of utilized AUMs.] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: This is an unreasonable 

restriction and would ensure that RMP representations of no decrease in AUMs are false. Cannot 

reconcile this paragraph with assumptions throughout EIS that there will be no change in grazing.

Response: It is reasonable to design range improvements to conform with the management of other 

resources, such as the Lander Trail.

Pinedale RMP A27-171 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

Comment: PAGE: 4.45, SECTION: 4.6.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Livestock could be excluded 

from unallocated public lands, which would result in a loss of potential forage for livestock.] 

(STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: If a forage reserve then no reduction. Livestock do not use unallocated 

public lands. This does not make any sense.

Response: Livestock presently use most of the 21,000 acres of unallocated parcels, even though they 

have never been allocated and no grazing permits exist. This is a reasonable depiction of the impacts of 

allocating these parcels to other uses.

Comment: PAGE: 4-98, SECTION: 4.9.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE GROSSLY 

BIASED [Livestock grazing in and around campgrounds would create impacts on vegetation and could 

cause physical damage to facilities. The use of livestock fences could serve as obstacles to certain 

recreational activities. Livestock rub on public and private property such as signs and vehicles, and 

defecate in and around campsites, boat ramps, and other facilities. Allowing grazing on lakeshore and 

riparian areas could cause soil compaction and have impacts on riparian vegetation; this would be 

especially apparent in riparian areas where livestock remain for extended periods of the grazing season or 

where livestock are concentrated while grazing and loafing. These conditions decrease the benefits 

associated with an aesthetically pleasing and healthy environment and increase the public’s disregard for 

public property. The benefits attributed to the public’s perception of BLM grazing and recreational 

management practices would be affected. In localized areas, the impacts would be moderate. Some people 

enjoy seeing livestock; grazing may contribute to an understanding of commodity production and 

agricultural practices.] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: RMP closes campgrounds to livestock grazing. 

If text refers to areas around camp sites, the impacts apply equally to other grazing animals, especially 

riparian area use. Bias is extreme here and not credible.

Response: This is an accurate description of current impacts in camping areas. It is reasonable to assume 

that this type of impact could be expected to continue, particularly in unfenced facilities. The recreating 

public reacts differently to domestic livestock in campgrounds than to wildlife.

Comment: PAGE: 4-151, SECTION: 4.13.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [If reclamation is 

unsuccessful, AUM reductions could be necessary.] (STRIKEOUT) ADD Reclamation will include 

monitoring with close coordination with local agencies and landowners and permittees. Reclamation will 

be tailored to site capacity as determined by soil survey and objective will be to restore or enhance 

vegetation. EXPLANATION: BLM cannot punish livestock operator for failed reclamation.

Response: BLM’s objective is for reclamation to be successful. In most instances, reclamation results in 

usable forage for livestock and other animals. If for some reason reclamation proves not possible, it is 

reasonable to consider reductions in vegetation use.

AUMs 

Comment: The smallest footprint for PRMP mineral development, Alternative 3. This alternative is 

likely attractive to some in the conservation community, for example, but it also punitively reduces the 

AUMs (animal unit months), the amount of land/time available for grazing by ranchers. We can only 

interpret this as a deliberate but crude attempt to cause a political effect, i.e., to divide a wedge between 

ranchers and conservationists who have increasingly found common ground regarding the threat mineral 

sprawl poses to the Upper Bridger-Teton National Forest.

Response: It is reasonable to analyze an alternative that reduces livestock grazing in the developed fields. 

It was not designed as a punitive portion of Alternative 3.

A27-172 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing 

Comment: 1.) There should be no net loss of AUM’s in the resource area as a result of conflict with other 

uses of the land (oil&gas, wildlife, recreation, special designation areas, etc.).

Response: Current reclamation strategies within the active gas fields are such that no long-term 

reductions in grazing preference should occur. No significant reductions are anticipated as a result of 

other activities unless there is an actual decrease in land acreage, such as by fencing a campground. This 

would involve minimal acreage and no significant loss of animal unit months (AUMs) would be 

expected. 

Comment: The best that the BLM can do is to come up with Plan Alternative 3 that pits any sensable 

restrictions against livestock permitees (users) by cutting their AUM’s. The less land disturbed by drilling 

and roads should allow the same AUM’s to be maintain for a given area.

Response: It is important to consider the impacts of closing grazing allotments in areas of intensive oil 

and gas development. It is not intended as a “trade-off” for other facets of Alternative 3. BLM can choose 

individual elements of each alternative in formulating the Proposed Plan. Alternatives do not have to be 

carried forward in their entirety.

Comment: I do not believe that it is right for the BLM to use this political maneuvering to change 

rancher and livestock-permittee opinion. Does this alterative cut it AUM’s for livestock also effect the 

forage and habitat available for wildlife in these areas?

Response: Reductions in AUMs would theoretically result in more residual forage, which may have 

advantage to wildlife such as nesting sage-grouse and wintering elk. However, the industrialization of the 

landscape in the gas fields would also impact wildlife habitats and populations. 

Comment: A stated management goal is to “enhance livestock grazing” through, in part, actions to 

maintain the current grazing preference of 107,907 AUMs. However, the proposed action sets the stage 

for failure to meet this goal in several ways. These include an expressed readiness to reduce grazing in 

industrialized areas, an implied priority for wildlife in crucial big game winter ranges, grazing season 

adjustments in elk parturition areas and prohibitions against increases in active grazing preferences in at 

least two proposed Wild & Scenic River units. 

WSGA acknowledges that energy development will, at least temporarily, remove significant forage in 

certain areas. This impact need not result in a loss of AUM’s within the resource area provided that the 

plan makes a commitment to no net loss of AUM’s and maintains the flexibility to enhance available 

livestock grazing in non-development areas. We request that the final plan provide for necessary livestock 

grazing enhancements as needed to assure no net loss of livestock AUM’s. 

Response: It is reasonable to consider grazing reductions in heavily industrialized areas, as well as 

conservation of crucial big game habitats through stricter controls of livestock grazing and disallowing 

grazing increases in Wild and Scenic River (WSR) areas. Energy development may indeed result in a loss 

of AUMs, through inability to manage livestock in an industrialized area, if not through reduction of 

actual forage availability. BLM does not anticipate adopting a policy stipulating no net loss of livestock 

AUMs. 

Comment: Chapter 2 Page 118 Commentor WGFD We question the maintenance of current grazing 

preference of 107,907 AUMs knowing that both short- term and long-term decreases in forage will occur 

throughout the life of the RMP (100,000 acres annually for vegetation treatment and 7,136 estimated 

number of new federal gas wells anticipated to be developed with 42,180 acres of initial disturbance and 

17,300 acres of long-term disturbance).

Pinedale RMP A27-173 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

Response: While BLM recognizes that certain activities may result in a short-term reduction in 

availability of forage, BLM will mediate those issues on a case-by-case basis by employing various 

mitigation tools (such as temporary rest, temporary closures of allotments, implementing various grazing 

systems, etc.) while maintaining preference. Given propoer planning and mitigation options, BLM does 

not believe that long-term decreases in forage need occur as a result of intensive oil and gas field 

development.

Comment: Continuation of comment above Maintenance of the higher level of AUMs would likely be 

detrimental of vegetation management in remaining available grazing lands. We recommend that the 

available AUMs be re-analyzed.

Response: Analysis of available AUMs and proper stocking rates can be measured through periodic 

rangeland monitoring.

Comment: In addition, no alternative considered changes in the numbers of livestock that are permitted, 

or the actual use being made by livestock. Certainly livestock grazing is another significant influence and 

impact on the environment, and options that include changing the amount of actual use by livestock 

should have been considered, particularly given prolonged and lingering drought conditions. 

Response: Changes in the number of AUMs available for livestock grazing are considered in Alternatives 

2 and 3. An increase or decrease in the number of available AUMs would mean a corresponding increase 

or decrease in the number of livestock or actual use.

Legal Compliance, FLPMA, etc. 

Comment: Moreover, because the DEIS acknowledges that roughly 43% of the acres contained in 

allotments that have been assessed fail to meet the SRH, the RMP fails to comply with FLPMA. As we 

stated above, FLPMA mandates that the authorized officer reduce grazing or otherwise modify use when 

the SRH are not being met, but the RMP fails to take that action. The RMP further fails to evaluate 

whether grazing livestock is appropriate to particular areas, given the value of other uses diminished or 

foregone (e.g., wildlife, recreation, cultural, etc.). 

Weighing the impacts of resource management practices is consistent with the BLM’s mission of 

providing lands for multiple uses as recognized in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. Case law cited 

in the BLM’s guidance concludes that the “multiple use” concept as defined in law and regulations 

requires “a reasoned and informed decision that the benefits of grazing ... outweigh the costs” and a 

weighing of “the relative values of the resources.” The Pinedale RMP DEIS fails this requirement. 

Applied to the management of livestock grazing, the analysis must weigh the benefits and harms of 

grazing to determine if BLM should allow this use in any given area. Moreover, should the agency 

conclude that livestock grazing is an appropriate use, BLM must consider multiple-use values in 

determining how that area should be grazed. National Wildlife Fed’n v. BLM, No. UT-06-91-1 (DOI, 

Office of Hearings and Appeals, Hearings Div.) (Dec. 20, 1993) at 25, aff’d Comb Wash (citing 43 

U.S.C. §§ 1701(a)(8), 1702(c)). Therefore, in establishing grazing thresholds such as stocking rates and 

utilization levels, BLM is required to abide by “FLPMA’s mandate [that it] protect the full spectrum of 

environmental, ecological, cultural, and recreational values.” Id. 

During the development of the Upper Deschutes RMP for the Prineville District, the BLM proposed an 

alternative in which the BLM would use a formula to estimate the potential for conflict and demand 

associated with domestic livestock grazing. This matrix is attached to these comments and we urge the 

Pinedale BLM to incorporate a similar process for identifying allotments in need of rest and/or closure 

into this RMP. 

A27-174 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing 

Instead the of weighing whether or not the impacts of the domestic livestock grazing program outweigh 

its costs, the Pinedale RMP proposes more range “improvements” for these allotments. This ignores that 

in the 1960’s, BLM began a massive program of developing water, putting streams and springs into 

pipelines, seeding with crested wheatgrass, building fences, engaging in rotation grazing, and spending 

millions of dollars to “even out livestock distribution”. 

An early example of this, among others, was in BLM’s Vale District, where millions of dollars were spent 

on crested wheatgrass seedings and structural range improvements. Today, across BLM lands in the west, 

many of these systems have fallen into disrepair, the land has failed to recover and we are faced with 

more and more proposals to install grazing systems, water developments, and seed – not reduce livestock 

numbers. This is in spite of the fact that long-term studies, including those from the Vale District have 

shown that stocking rate is the critical variable, not grazing systems. These are cited in a later section. 

Before the Pinedale Field Office authorizes more range “improvements” as this RMP proposes to do to 

correct the degraded conditions found on a majority of the allotments in the planning area, it should first 

disclose the monitoring and other data that indicates such practices have been effective at actually 

improving soil, water quality, vegetative production, and other resources. Without such information, the 

DEIS fails to meet NEPA requirements for scientific integrity. 

43 CFR Sec. 4100.0-8 states: “Land use plans shall establish allowable resource uses (either singly or in 

combination), related levels of production or use to be maintained, areas of use, and resource condition 

goals and objectives to be obtained. The plans also set forth program constraints and general management 

practices needed to achieve management objectives. Livestock grazing activities and management actions 

approved by the authorized officer shall be in conformance with the land use plan as defined at 43 CFR 

1601.0-5(b).” 

In the case of the Pinedale RMP and DEIS, the BLM has recognized many times that the quality of the 

land in the project area is severely diminished. Thus, when the RMP seeks to improve “range condition,” 

as it must, what this really means is that the RMP must provide for improved riparian, upland, and 

wildlife habitat conditions and include goals and objectives and allowable use standards to achieve those 

goals. 

The correction of resource degradation caused by domestic livestock and the prevention of future 

degradation should be driving forces behind the RMP and should be reflected throughout the NEPA 

document and in any future agency decisions regarding domestic livestock grazing in the project area. 

Specific livestock grazing levels that will be used to meet standards are lacking in all alternatives in the 

DEIS and must be included in the FEIS. Otherwise, the plan lacks teeth and is unenforceable. Simply 

stating that specific standards will be developed at the site specific level violates law and allows the BLM 

to continue the degradation caused by domestic livestock. By not stating minimum livestock utilization 

standards in the RMP, the BLM failed to establish allowable use levels as required by both 43 CFR Sec 

4100.0-8 and 43 CFR 1601.0-5(b). 

The DEIS states that the Standards for Rangeland Health (SRH) will ensure that domestic livestock 

grazing occurs at levels that will protect resources, and the DEIS claims that these standards will be used 

to guide domestic livestock grazing at the site specific level. These standards are as follows: 

1. Uplands are in proper functioning condition 

2. Riparian and wetland areas are in proper functioning condition 

3. Water quality meets State standards 

Pinedale RMP A27-175 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

4. Air quality meets State standards 

5. Provide habitat as necessary, to maintain a viable and diverse population of native plant and 

animal species, including special status species 

The discussion of these standards fails to include allowable use standards and guidelines and/or objectives 

that are paramount to achieving or maintaining the above listed standards. Moreover, About 65% of the 

planning area has been evaluated for compliance with the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health 

(USDI, BLM 1997a). These assessments indicated that 58 allotments composed of 348,131 acres are 

meeting the standards, 17 allotments (283,508 acres) are not meeting one or more standards because of 

grazing, and 12 allotments (27,404 acres) are not meeting one or more standards but the cause is not 

related to livestock grazing. A full 43% (almost half) of the acres that have been evaluated are not 

meeting the SRH because of grazing, yet the BLM fails to take any action in this RMP that would lead to 

actually attaining the standards set for in the SRH. Based on 43 CFR 4180, appropriate actions to address 

the negative impacts of domestic livestock are to be implemented that will result in significant progress 

toward attainment of the standards no later than the start of the next grazing season. Clearly this has not 

been accomplished. 

The PFO has failed take the required “hard look” at the impacts of domestic livestock grazing. The DEIS 

fails to scientifically and accurately determine those lands which are capable and suitable for livestock 

grazing. The BLM has further failed to accurately and quantitatively determine how much forage (i.e. 

forage capacity) is currently available. On top of this, the RMP DEIS fails to properly allocate that forage 

to watershed and stream protection, wildlife habitat and food, then to livestock if available. 

Furthermore, the RMP fails to provide for long-term rest to facilitate recovery, and any discussion of 

impacts should have addressed the unwillingness of permittees to use peer-reviewed range science 

principles for management and their strong opposition to the most minimal standards of performance. 

Instead they rely on unfounded solutions such as time-controlled grazing and “holistic” management such 

as advocated by Alan Savory. 

For example, the effects of different livestock grazing intensities on forage plant production were studied 

in a ponderosa pine type in Colorado as early as the 1940’s. This study showed that forage consumption 

at a rate of 57% produced an average of twice as much forage as a rate of 71%. An area left ungrazed by 

livestock for 7 years produced three times as much forage as the 71% use area. The authors concluded 

that, as grazing use increased, forage production decreased. During that same period, Dyksterhuis, in a 

classic paper on the use of quantitative ecology in range management, presented examples of how 

stocking rates must be adjusted based on precipitation and range condition, which included a rating based 

on departure from the potential plant community. NRCS considers proper grazing management as that 

management that sustains the potential plant community. 

The effects of conservative (30 – 35%) use vs. heavy (60 – 65%) grazing use on grasses and forbs by 

cattle were determined in a New Mexico study. Both of these pastures had experienced conservative use 

for over 10 years. In 1997, one pasture was changed to heavy use. This study showed that heavy stocking 

rates resulted in serious declines in productivity in the succeeding year. Perennial grass production was 

reduced by 57% and forbs by 41% in the heavily grazed pasture compared to the conservatively grazed 

pasture. The authors cited a number of other studies in arid environments that showed heavy stocking 

rates were accompanied by decreases in forage production when compared to conservative use. After 

drought, the ability of forage plants to recover was directly related to the standing crop levels maintained 

during the dry period. The studies cited showed that grazing during different seasons was less important 

than grazing intensity. 

A27-176 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing 

Five long-term stocking rate studies from three different locations in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah 

documented similar patterns. In the Desert Experimental Range in Utah, a 13-year study with moderate 

(35%) and heavy (60%) use by sheep resulted in annual forage production of 198 lbs/acre and 72 lbs/acre. 

The authors recommended 25 – 30% use of all forage species. A 10-year study at the Santa Rita Range in 

Arizona demonstrated that perennial grass cover and yield showed an inverse relationship to grazing 

intensity, while burroweed, an undesirable species, increased with increasing forage use. The authors 

recommended a 40% use level. A 37-year study at the Jornada Experimental range in New Mexico 

involving conservative (33%) and moderate (45%) use showed that the lower grazing intensity resulted in 

greater black grama (perennial grass) cover. Lowland areas with high clay content and periodic flooding 

grazed at moderate intensity had higher cover of Tobosa, a perennial grass, than heavily grazed areas. 

They recommended 30% be used as a stocking intensity with no more than 40% removed in any year. A 

10-year study at the Chihuihuan Desert Rangeland Research Center looked at four grazing intensities of 

25%, 35%, 50% and 60%. Light (25%) and moderate (35%) use produced 70% more forage than 50% use 

and more than double that achieved at 60% use. Here, the author recommended conservative stocking at 

30 – 35%. 

Hutchings and Stewart, suggested that 25 – 30 % use of all forage species by livestock was proper. They 

recommended this level because routinely stocking at capacity will result in overgrazing in half the years 

and necessitate heavy use of supplemental feed. Even with this system, they recognized that complete 

destocking would be needed in 2 or 3 out of ten years. Holechek et al concluded that the research is 

remarkably consistent in showing that conservative grazing at 30 – 35% use of forage will give higher 

livestock productivity and financial returns than stocking at grazing capacity. They also recognized that 

consumption by rodents and other wildlife must be taken into account as part of this utilization, 

otherwise, rangeland productivity would suffer even at these levels of use. Galt et al recommended levels 

of 25% utilization for livestock and 25% for wildlife with 50% remaining for watershed protection. In 

none of these cases have the scientists recommended 50% utilization by livestock, as the BLM 

continually authorizes (i.e. take half, leave half) and they are clear that even at the lower use levels 

recommended, allowance for wildlife use must be included in overall use. 

Clearly, the long-term range studies cited here show that under actual field conditions, light grazing (25% 

or less by livestock) is most appropriate to meet BLM’s mandate for sustainable use. These utilization 

rates are the minimum needed to ensure proper functioning condition, which is the minimum acceptable 

condition. The BLM would do well to require at least minimum compliance with these standards in the 

RMP until these standards can be evaluated at the site-specific level. 

As previously discussed, the DEIS fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives for domestic 

livestock grazing in the planning area. The statutes governing domestic livestock grazing on public lands 

do not unconditionally provide that grazing privileges shall always be safeguarded. Instead they provide 

that such privileges will be adequately safeguarded as long as they are consistent with the purposes and 

provisions of the TGA, namely protecting the federal rangelands and ensuring their orderly use. 43 U.S.C. 

§ 315b. The Act clearly states that the need for stability must be balanced against the need to protect the 

rangeland. See id. § 315a. 

Furthermore, maintaining and improving wildlife habitat and restoring degraded range conditions, as 

reflected in the purpose and need for the RMP revision, is consistent with analyzing a no grazing 

alternative, and should be reflected in this analysis, is in compliance with both the Taylor Grazing Act of 

1934, the Federal Lands Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, and other laws that govern livestock 

management on public lands. 

The Taylor Grazing Act was passed to “stop injury to public lands by preventing overgrazing and soil 

deterioration,” and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires the BLM to 

Pinedale RMP A27-177 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

maintain and improve wildlife habitat. It also requires that “Allotment management plans shall be tailored 

to the specific range condition of the area to be covered by such plan, and shall be reviewed on a periodic 

basis to determine whether they have been effective in improving the range condition of the lands 

involved...” (43 U.S.C. § 1752(d) (emphasis added)) 

The requirement to focus on improvement of range condition is also explicit in the Public Rangeland 

Improvement Act (PRIA), which provides that the goal of public land range management is to improve 

range condition (emphasis added).( 43 U.S.C. §§ 1901(b)(2), 1903(b)) “Range condition” as defined in 

PRIA means the “quality of the land” as reflected by the ability of specific areas to support the 

productivity sought by BLM. (See id. § 1902(d)). 

The RMP DEIS fails to disclose how current AMPs and management direction have been effective at 

preventing injury to public lands and preventing overgrazing. Instead the DEIS acknowledges that current 

management has led to many problem areas across the PFO, but fails to take any action to correct those 

problems. Instead, it is just business as usual across the planning area, and the BLM is continuing to 

degrade these public lands in violation of the laws and regulations that govern domestic livestock grazing.

Response: FLPMA does not address the Standards for Rangeland Health (SRH), which were not 

established in 1976, nor does it mandate reductions in grazing. Reductions are based, rather, on rangeland 

monitoring data consistent with CFR Subpart 4100. Consistent with BLM policy, the RMP states that 

lands would be managed to meet or move toward the SRH. The RMP does not attempt to accomplish sitespecific analysis on the suitability for livestock grazing by area. The PFO has not determined that 

degraded conditions exist over the majority of the area. The RMP does establish allowable resource use 

(i.e., 107,907 AUMs), and resource condition goals (i.e., meet SRH). BLM has not determined that the 

quality of the land in the planning area is severely diminished (see Appendix 20, Table A20-2; and 

Chapter 3, Table 3-5 of the draft EIS). When an allotment does not meet SRH, appropriate actions have 

been or will be taken consistent with 43 CFR 4180. Site-specific analyses and allocations of resources are 

not within the scope of this RMP. 

There are numerous studies and agendas in the field of natural resource management. BLM attempts to 

employ best management practices in an objective approach that allows sustainable multiple use of the 

public lands. 

Comment: PAGE: 1-16 SECTION: 1.5.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Management for Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands was approved by the Secretary of the Interior August 12, 1997. These 

Standards and Guidelines were developed in compliance with the Department of the Interior’s final rule 

for grazing administration effective August 21, 1995 (43 CFR 4180.1). Wyoming Instruction 

Memorandum 97-111, dated September 26, 1997, requires that the Standards and Guidelines will be 

incorporated in all Wyoming RMPs through plan maintenance. The RMP was revised to show that the 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands apply to all resource programs and activities and the Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management apply only to the livestock grazing program. EXPLANATION: Section 

needs to add conformance to Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. The text recommended is 

copied from the Pinedale MSA, which recognized that all resource uses had to meet rangeland health 

standards. MSA 2-38. The RMP has materially deviated from that criteria and needs to be changed. See 

Comment #2. 

Response: Compliance with the Standards for Rangeland Health does indeed apply to all users of the 

resources, yet only 43 CFR 4180 allows for the “enforcement” of these standards within the grazing 

program.

A27-178 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing 

Comment: PAGE: 2-7 SECTION: 2.3.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: The Wyoming Standards for 

Healthy Rangelands would apply to all resource management decisions and activities and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management would apply to all livestock grazing activities on public lands. 

EXPLANATION: Change conforms to MSA statement of BLM policy which remains unchanged. As 

written, the RMP provides that Standards for Healthy Rangelands do not apply to other resource 

management decisions and that statement is incorrect. 

Response: Compliance with the Standards for Rangeland Health does indeed apply to all users of the 

resources, yet only CFR 4180 allows for the “enforcement” of these standards within the grazing 

program.

Comment: PAGE: 2-8 SECTION: 2.3.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE: Conversions from one 

type of livestock to another would be evaluated on a case by- case basis, including an environmental 

analysis, and would be authorized in conformance with the grazing rules and analyzed in light of the goals 

and objectives of the RMP. EXPLANATION: Conversions need to conform to grazing rules as much as 

RMP, which can be revised or amended. 

Response: Conversions in type will conform to the grazing regulations. It is not necessary to continue to 

state in each section that regulations will be followed.

Comment: PAGE: 2-119, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: h. Approximately 21,000 acres of unallocated 

forage on public lands would be considered for wildlife and livestock allocation on a case-by-case basis, 

in accordance with RMP goals and objectives. 1. The number of AUMs to be allocated to each use would 

be determined after the lands have been evaluated to determine the range condition and appropriate 

carrying capacity. EXPLANATION: Must be revised to conform to FLPMA and grazing rules. 

Reallocation of grazing must be done in direct correlation to the other use. BLM cannot reallocate forage 

to wildlife if the rancher is responsible for increases in forage. Similarly, rancher cannot be forced to take 

a reduction when elk are the cause of the resource issue. Any reallocation must be fair and even-handed. 

21000 acres are too small for forage reserve. FLPMA requires 10-year permits unless “ (1) the land is 

pending disposal; or (2) the land will be devoted to a public purpose prior to the end of ten years; or (3) it 

will be in the best interest of sound land management to specify a shorter term:” 43 U.S.C. §1752(d). the 

land is not pending disposal, is not to be devoted to another public purpose and the RMP fails to 

document that it is in the interest of sound land management, because lack of AMP, or land use plan is 

not a valid reason.

Response: These 21,000 acres actually consist of small parcels. Although the logic may be correct, the 

size of the parcels makes the case-by-case approach most reasonable. These parcels were never allocated 

for livestock grazing; this is not “reallocation”. This statement provides for some of the parcels to be 

allocated to livestock grazing.

Comment: PAGE: 2-119, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete ¶k. [k. Forage reserves would be 

established to accommodate and facilitate rangeland restoration and recovery on a landscape scale. 

Authorized forage removal would not exceed the livestock carrying capacity (acres/AUM) of the 

allotment identified as a forage reserve. The PFO would actively pursue opportunities as they arise to 

establish forage reserves based on reasons such as— 

• The cooperation of a current permittee under a partnership agreement or memorandum of 

understanding 

• Newly available forage for livestock on a sustained yield basis such as that created upon 

cancellation of preference within an individual allotment 

Pinedale RMP A27-179 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

• Non-BLM lands made available in cooperation with another agency or entity. Forage reserves, 

once established, would be managed in accordance with the provisions of an appropriate activity 

plan developed in consultation with the interested public.] (strikeout) 

In general, local governments note that the livestock grazing section fails to recognize that grazing is a 

principal multiple use established and confirmed in both TGA and FLPMA. The land in Wyoming was 

determined to be chiefly valuable for livestock grazing and withdrawn for grazing districts in accordance 

with Section 1 of TGA. 43 U.S.C. §315a. The entire idea of forage reserves can only work when a ranch 

goes out of business because there are no “vacant allotments” in the planning area. If a ranch goes out of 

business, then the community loses another significant agriculture component that not only supports the 

community but remains an important part of the custom and culture of western Wyoming. The local 

governments are therefore opposed to forage reserves because they involve retiring allotments and putting 

ranches out of business. 

EXPLANATION: In general, local governments note that the livestock grazing section fails to recognize 

that grazing is a principal multiple use established and confirmed in both TGA and FLPMA. The land in 

Wyoming was determined to be chiefly valuable for livestock grazing and withdrawn for grazing districts 

in accordance with Section 1 of TGA. 43 U.S.C. §315a. The entire idea of forage reserves can only work 

when a ranch goes out of business because there are no “vacant allotments” in the planning area. If a 

ranch goes out of business, then the community loses another significant agriculture component that not 

only supports the community but remains an important part of the custom and culture of western 

Wyoming. The local governments are therefore opposed to forage reserves because they involve retiring 

allotments and putting ranches out of business. 

Response: Forage reserves would provide livestock operators with flexibility to manage existing 

allotments and enhance forage. Forage reserves would only be available from willing participants. A 

forage reserve does not retire an allotment, but keeps it in production to facilitate livestock grazing 

throughout the planning area.

Comment: PAGE: 4.45, SECTION: 4.6.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: The impacts from the 

following activities would be similar to those impacts described under Alternative 3: fire and fuels 

management, [establishment of forage reserve allotments,] (STRIKEOUT) the closure of campgrounds 

and recreational sites to livestock grazing, the closure of existing and new exclosures to livestock grazing, 

[the incorporation of deferments and/or periods of rest into allotments where grazing begins prior to June 

1, measures to improve elk habitat adjacent to elk feedgrounds, the exclusion of livestock from elk 

parturition areas between May 1 and June 30, and designation of the WSR units.] (STRIKEOUT) 

EXPLANATION: See Comment #, chapter 2-119. BLM cannot defer grazing in areas adjacent to elk 

feedgrounds when elk are the reason the area needs to recover. BLM exclusion for brucellosis points out 

the need to address disease in the feedgrounds as per litigation still pending against BLM. See Comment 

# ch. 2-138. Even BLM Handbook does not exclude grazing from WSR units and as identified in previous 

comments, RMP WSRA study fails to meet BLM manual criteria and must be severed from RMP. See 

Comment ch. 2-31.

Response: It is BLM policy to defer or rest allotments following vegetation treatments. These 

management actions include cooperation with the affected grazing permittee.

Monitoring and Mitigation 

Comment: The DEIS states that federal grazing allotments in the planning area will be monitored every 

2-10 years (see Table All-1). The Service is concerned that this level of monitoring may not ensure 

adequate evaluation of habitat conditions present on the Bureau’s grazing allotments. If allotments are 

normally permitted for a 10 year time period and it could be up to 10 years before an allotment is 

A27-180 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing 

monitored, then allotments may not be monitored frequently enough to allow for adjustments to grazing 

intensity, if necessary. The Service suggests that the Bureau evaluate the conditions of its grazing 

allotments on a consistent, more frequent basis to ensure an adequate assessment of the conditions of the 

resources present there.

Response: BLM’s ability to monitor is subject to funding and manpower. At present our workload 

priorities are largely governed by both the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and land use planning, such as the 

development of this RMP. Also, this situation does not apply to all of the more than 200 allotments in the 

PFO. BLM more closely monitors allotments involving prior resource concerns. 

Comment: 2.) Adjustments in grazing practices (season long vs. deferred), seasons of use, and/or 

permitted/annual use numbers should only occur after rangeland monitoring indicates a change is needed. 

Deferred grazing systems on all allotments may not be appropriate.

Response: BLM policy is to conduct monitoring before implementing these types of changes. It is not 

necessary to duplicate all policy statements in the RMP. 

Comment: Range scientists have increasingly recognized the most important determinant of range 

condition or health is whether carrying capacity is exceeded, not management efforts like grazing 

systems. FLPMA also forbids that exceedance of carrying capacity on grazing allotments.

Response: Rangeland monitoring data have not indicated that allotments in the PFO are exceeding the 

carrying capacity. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-118, SECTION: 2.5.5, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: BLM or third parties would 

fund projects to mitigate loss of forage in industrialized areas. EXPLANATION: The livestock operators 

should not be required or expected to fund projects necessary to mitigate loss of forage.

Response: It is within the scope of the RMP to allow for offsite mitigation for specific on-the-ground 

developments. Such mitigation could include provisions for domestic livestock grazing and would be 

contemplated for site-specific projects at the implementation level.

Comment: PAGE: 4.39, SECTION: 4.6.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Well sites will be 

adequately fenced. As further mitigation for impacts on ranch operations, BLM will facilitate and support 

range improvements to increase forage for livestock. EXPLANATION: Past restrictions on range 

improvements interfere with allotments maintaining, meeting range health standards. Moreover, recent 

experience with reclamation at Sand Draw and Stud Horse Butte show that without mitigation even short 

term losses make ranch operations uneconomic. The objective for local governments is to maintain ranch 

operations, as part of the economy and the custom and culture of the region.

Response: It is within the scope of the RMP to allow for offsite mitigation on specific on-the-ground 

developments. Such mitigation could include provisions for domestic livestock grazing and would be 

contemplated for site-specific projects at the implementation level. Mitigation strategies are currently 

being addressed at the well-field planning level.

Comment: PAGE: 4.45, SECTION: 4.6.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE, EXPLANATION: 

The RMP changes do not support the RMP assumption that there will be no decreases in grazing AUMs. 

Revisions are necessary to conform to range health policy that states livestock grazing reductions are not 

appropriate where livestock is not the causal factor. The RMP must also commit to range projects to 

mitigate loss of forage during development.

Pinedale RMP A27-181 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

Response: It is appropriate to implement grazing reductions where sufficient forage to support current 

grazing is not available. Whereas it is the overall intent to maintain AUMs, the text on page 4-45 of the 

draft EIS refers to site-specific situations where monitoring supports changes in management, including 

reductions, which is supported by CFR. It is within the scope of the RMP to allow for offsite mitigation 

on specific on-the-ground developments. Such mitigation could include provisions for domestic livestock 

grazing and would be contemplated for site-specific projects at the implementation level. 

Brucellosis 

Comment: 7.) The BLM should not set seasons of use based upon the risk of transmission of brucellosis. 

The issue of risk of transmission of brucellosis should be handled in the “herd plan” process.

Response: The statement that exists in Alternatives 3 and 4 under Livestock Grazing Management will be 

modified with an additional sentence as follows: This action would only occur after, and in conjunction 

with, a herd management plan developed through coordination and cooperation with the affected grazing 

permittee and the WGFD. 

Wildlife and Fish 

Comment: A strong concern of ours was the equitable sharing of forage between domestic livestock and 

wildlife. The grazing component of the RMP must deal with wildlife needs fairly.

Response: Existing rangeland monitoring of wildlife habitat and livestock forage availability has not 

indicated habitat deficiencies for either user of the rangeland resources. 

Comment: The assumptions contained in 4.6.1 include a statement that “Large predators (gray wolf, 

grizzly bear) would increase their range and would impact livestock grazing on BLM lands.” Without 

further explanation, we are left to surmise the meaning of this statement and its relevance to the RMP. 

Does it simply mean that these predators will kill livestock? Does it assume no federal or state predator 

management activities? Most importantly, does it signify that BLM anticipates restricting livestock 

grazing in order to provide protection for these species? Even the USFWS has maintained that no specific 

habitat protections are necessary to provide for the gray wolf.

Response: It is correct to assume that more predators will likely result in more livestock deaths. The 

management of endangered species is the responsibility of the USFWS, and it is not implied that the 

BLM PFO will implement changes in grazing management to protect the gray wolf or grizzly bear. 

Comment: There is currently underway a cooperative effort by both cattle ranchers and the Wyoming 

game and Fish Department to develop herd management plans for both elk herd units and cattle 

operations. That process should serve as the appropriate venue for exploration of any changes to livestock 

grazing within elk parturition areas. It is inappropriate to propose such adjustments in the RMP. 

Mitigation for the impacts of energy development together with ongoing efforts to meet Standards for 

Rangeland Health may necessitate adjustments in grazing practices. However, any such adjustments 

should be site specific and based on rangeland monitoring utilizing accepted protocols.

Response: The statement that exists in Alternatives 3 and 4 under Livestock Grazing Management will be 

modified with an additional sentence as follows: This action would only occur after, and in conjunction 

with, a herd management plan developed through coordination and cooperation with the affected grazing 

permittee and the WGFD. Also, it is a standard operating procedure to base any and all grazing 

management adjustments on the evaluation of rangeland monitoring information. 

A27-182 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing 

Comment: BLM should also consider more stringent grazing standards for the protection of wildlife 

habitat.

Response: Changes in grazing management, including the numbers of livestock, seasons of use, areas, 

and class of livestock, are based on rangeland monitoring data and designed to achieve rangeland health 

for all land uses.

Comment: Moreover, the impacts of domestic livestock grazing on sage-grouse extend beyond impacts 

to leks.

Response: The discussion of grazing impacts on sage-grouse has been expanded in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 2-119, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [e. Livestock grazing in areas of 

crucial big game winter ranges would be managed to enhance vegetation condition and forage availability 

for wildlife.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: Standards need to be deleted as they have not been justified 

nor does FEIS document the impacts on the permittees or the need for the change in forage allocation. 

The grazing preference adjudications in Wyoming, allocated 25% for livestock and left wildlife with the 

remaining 75% of the forage. This proposed change in management would mean additional reductions in 

grazing, without documenting the need or without documenting the impacts on the agriculture industry. 

The local governments believe that BLM should continue its historical commitment to livestock grazing 

and must therefore delete these sections. This standard is a de facto adjustment of grazing preference 

without following monitoring criteria found in grazing rules and 2003 BLM Wyoming PLC and 

Wyoming Grazing District MOU. RMP cannot repudiate either rules or MOU.

Response: There is no implication in that section that reductions in AUMs will be performed within 

crucial big game habitat. Any such actions would be developed according to monitoring information and 

grazing regulations.

Comment: PAGE: 2-119, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [f. Livestock water developments on 

crucial elk winter ranges would be designed, located, and managed to maintain winter elk forage.] 

(strikeout) EXPLANATION: This would ensure no upland water, which interferes with meeting Healthy 

Rangeland standards and limits tools available to reduce elk and cattle conflicts. Prejudges situation 

without monitoring or without using range science.

Response: It is reasonable, and feasible, to design developments to maintain crucial wildlife habitats. To 

suppose otherwise is to say that livestock and big game are incompatible on public lands.

Comment: PAGE: 2-119, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [g. Grazing seasons in allotments 

containing elk parturition areas would be adjusted to begin after June 1 to reduce the potential for 

brucellosis transmission.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: Brucellosis exists due to elk feedgrounds. BLM 

should not penalize livestock operators but rather should clean up elk feedgrounds.

Response: Restricting livestock access to elk parturition areas during calving prevents the spread of 

brucellosis to livestock.

Comment: PAGE: 4.37, SECTION: 4.6.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [• Large predators (gray wolf, 

grizzly bear) would increase their range and would impact livestock grazing on BLM allotments.] 

(STRIKEOUT) Large predators (gray wolf, grizzly bear) would increase their range but effects will be 

blunted by cooperation with state animal damage management board. EXPLANATION: RMP fails to 

include cooperation with Wyoming Animal Damage Management Board, which BLM must do pursuant 

to MOU and FLPMA. 43 U.S.C. §1712(c)(9).

Pinedale RMP A27-183 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

Response: It is correct to assume that more predators will likely result in more livestock deaths. The 

management of endangered species is the responsibility of the USFWS, and it is not implied that the 

BLM PFO will implement changes in grazing management to protect the gray wolf or grizzly bear. It is 

not necessary to reiterate all policy, law, and regulation in the RMP.

Comment: PAGE: 4-40, SECTION: 4.6.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE [Wildlife habitat 

management activities would generally affect livestock grazing through restrictions on range management 

in order to control livestock distribution into and utilization of crucial habitats. Uneven distribution of big 

game would cause some grazing allotments to receive a disproportionate amount of the total wildlife 

grazing area within the planning area, which could further necessitate adjustments in livestock 

management. ] (STRIKEOUT) Where wildlife habitat management activities may affect livestock grazing 

such as distribution and utilization of crucial habitats, BLM will work with permittees and WGFD to 

secure solutions. If uneven distribution of big game results in disproportionate grazing by wildlife, then 

BLM will work with WGFD to reduce wildlife use to conform to livestock grazing permits and range 

capacity. Sensitive wildlife habitats (e.g., greater sage-grouse leks, whitetailed prairie dog towns, and big 

game crucial winter ranges) would also influence location, the timing of construction, and the cost of 

range improvements. In addition, modifications of fences constructed prior to adoption of standards 

(BLM Manual H-1741-1) could be required to ensure that livestock remain in the appropriate area, 

without those modifications unnecessarily endangering wildlife. EXPLANATION: This paragraph is 

inaccurate. Compliance with range health standards is required by rule and wildlife use is not exempt. 

Distribution of wildlife that exceeds range standards or allotment capacity must by solved by WGFD 

changing management, not by reducing livestock. BLM can only reduce livestock numbers when they are 

the cause. DM 4180-1; App. C.

Response: This assessment of impacts in the draft EIS is reasonable.

Comment: PAGE: 4.45, SECTION: 4.6.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Management actions 

to achieve or maintain a seral stage appropriate for the maximum benefit of Colorado River cutthroat trout 

may [would] (STRIKEOUT) alter the management of livestock in Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat 

areas. Livestock management strategies could include [forage allocation reductions,] (STRIKEOUT) 

deferred or [shortened ] (STRIKEOUT) grazing periods, use of riparian pastures, increased cattle herding, 

increased fencing, and upland water development. EXPLANATION: Cannot reduce grazing without 

monitoring, etc. BLM has obligation to pursue options other than removal of cattle. Again contrary to 

representations throughout FEIs that there will be no reductions in grazing.

Response: As stated in the management actions common to all alternatives, any changes in grazing 

management would be based on site-specific monitoring. It is reasonable to alter livestock use to conserve 

other resources. The text has been updated to change “would” to “could” to recognize that changes would 

not be necessary in areas where Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat already functions well.

Comment: PAGE: 4.45, SECTION: 4.6.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Increased emphasis 

on maintaining and improving habitats for sensitive species may [would result in limiting range 

improvements and altering] (STRIKEOUT) livestock grazing management where grazing activities are 

shown to adversely affect [impact] (STRIKEOUT) the integrity of the species or their habitat. 

EXPLANATION: Local governments object to RMP provisions that would limit range and vegetation 

management tools. This paragraph like the others in this section irreconcilably conflict with 

representations that the RMP would not change grazing levels.

Response: The RMP does not rule out site-specific situations, such as sensitive species needs, which 

would necessitate management changes for any user of the resources.

A27-184 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing 

Comment: PAGE: 4-183 SECTION: 4.17.3 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE The impacts from 

livestock grazing management on fish and wildlife habitat would include competition for forage and 

water and habitat use and alteration. Livestock driveways [impact wildlife habitats because 

of](STRIKEOUT) may have reduced vegetation and compaction of soils. [Stock driveways tend to 

concentrate high levels of livestock use that can cause significant degradation (e.g., near-complete 

removal of vegetation, soil compaction).](STRIKEOUT) These areas [no longer provide forage or shelter 

but could be are](STRIKEOUT) used as wildlife movement corridors. Late-season grazing can remove 

residual vegetation [that would be necessary](STRIKEOUT) on big game winter ranges [and provide 

important nesting cover for greater sage-grouse in the following spring.](STRIKEOUT) Livestock 

grazing activities can also serve to enhance forage for big game species. Regrowth areas previously used 

by cattle could be favored because of the resultant increase in forage palatability. EXPLANATION: 

Highly unlikely that driveways have adverse impact on wildlife habitat. Certainly wildlife make equal or 

greater use so again statement must be qualified or deleted. Utilization levels set for livestock grazing 

leave sufficient residual forage. Grouse nesting is in sage brush not in grass species. Statement sounds as 

if taken from research on sharptailed grouse on Great Plains.

Response: Livestock driveways concentrate use in narrow strips and result in high impacts to vegetation 

and soils. Most driveways in the planning area contain little or no sagebrush as a result of intensive use. 

The impact analysis as presented is reasonable.

Comment: PAGE: 4-184 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE or DELETE Late 

summer and early spring are periods when livestock are most apt to utilize shrubs, and if over grazed 

reducing their availability to wildlife. Livestock grazing in the fall or early spring [would remove 

the](STRIKEOUT) utilizes residual herbaceous understory, and if over grazed, it may reduce [reducing 

its](STRIKEOUT) vertical structure, which may affect [reduces the](STRIKEOUT) visual security for 

upland nesting birds. This could lead to increased predation and lower nesting success. EXPLANATION: 

Livestock grazing utilization does not reduce forage for wildlife. It only occurs if overused. Authors 

appear to begrudge every stem, leaf and blade of grass to something other than wildlife. This is not 

supported by science or facts. EIS assumes livestock grazing removes vegetation. Cattle unlike wild 

horses do not remove entire plant. Author is uninformed about livestock grazing and should consult range 

staff or processionals. The causal relationships are indirect or cumulative and are not direct.

Response: Current research has produced a correlation between a certain amount of residual grass height 

(3.9") and sage-grouse nesting success. Livestock grazing by nature removes vegetation, as does every 

kind of vegetation consumption. Leaves and stems removed by animals or other uses are not present to 

provide shelter for sage-grouse and other birds, which is the impact this paragraph conveys. The 

document attempts to disclose the types of impacts likely to occur; the determination in the Preferred 

Alternative that current livestock grazing capacity would be maintained weighs those impacts and makes 

a management choice.

Comment: PAGE: 4-209 SECTION: 4.17.7 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [Livestock grazing 

would result in various impacts on wildlife and fisheries. Allocating some forage increases to wildlife and 

watershed protection would improve wildlife cover, forage, and habitat and mitigate impacts that 

livestock grazing would otherwise impose on the area. Establishment of forage reserves would provide 

management with flexibility to rest other allotments during drought years, habitat improvements, 

wildland fire, prescribed burns, and other circumstances.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: It is grazing 

in general, not specific to livestock. Unlikely that forage increases would have significant benefit, the 

original grazing preference adjudications already allocated most of forage to wildlife. Since those 

adjudications big game numbers have increased exponentially. Forage reserve is too small to have 

benefits identified.

Pinedale RMP A27-185 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

Response: No forage has been adjudicated to wildlife in the planning area. Big game numbers are 

currently at half of population objective (deer), below objective (moose), or approximately at population 

objective (pronghorn). Only elk, (about 8% of the big game animals in herd units in the planning area) are 

slightly above objective. This is likely at least partly because they are artificially fed in the winter.

Comment: PAGE: 4-209 SECTION: 4.17.7 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [Water projects 

developed in crucial winter ranges could lead to a redistribution of livestock on crucial winter ranges. 

This could result in the loss of sufficient forage needed to maintain wildlife fitness during winter. A 

significant loss of forage likely would cause wildlife redistribution to areas that might be occupied by 

other big game herds or to private lands, increasing winter mortality and human conflicts. Since native 

winter habitats can only support a limited wildlife population, the result could be a reduction in species 

diversity or viability. Adjusting grazing seasons in allotments containing elk parturition areas to begin 

after June 1 would reduce the potential for brucellosis transmission.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: 

Impact rests on unestablished assumptions, namely that there is insufficient habitat to support big game. If 

that is the case, BLM must analyze excess numbers and conduct a new adjudication of forage and habitat. 

BLM cannot assume no change in grazing AUMs but then provide for reductions in grazing by precluding 

range projects. The assumption that better distribution of grazing animals will rob big game of winter 

forage is also false, since forage can be expected to grow during grazing season. Given the high numbers 

of big game, the risks of loss of species diversity, extirpation are simply not supported. Issue of disease 

must be independently assessed.

Response: It is reasonable, and feasible, to design developments to maintain crucial wildlife habitats. To 

suppose otherwise is to say that livestock and big game are incompatible on public lands. It is reasonable 

to disclose that redistributing livestock to ridge tops and other crucial winter range areas would increase 

livestock use of forage previously available for big game during winter. 

Big game numbers are currently at half of population objective (deer), below objective (moose), or 

approximately at population objective (pronghorn). Only elk, (about 8% of the big game animals in herd 

units in the planning area) are slightly above objective. This is likely at least partly because they are 

artificially fed in the winter.

Comment: PAGE: 209 SECTION: 4.17.7 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Mineral supplement 

blocks for livestock and wildlife use would be placed in locations that both promote proper grazing 

distribution and prevent inappropriate [livestock](STRIKEOUT) use on riparian habitat, minimizing soil 

compaction and runoff near surface waters, and could decrease grazing pressure and competition for 

riparian vegetation. EXPLANATION: Grazing use applies to big game, wild horses and livestock

Response: There are no wild horses in the planning area. It is unlikely that placement of salt blocks 

would increase deer or pronghorn use to the point of riparian degradation. Strategic placement of 

supplement blocks is intended to manage livestock use, not big game.

Comment: PAGE: 4-209 SECTION: 4.17.7 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [Closing riparian 

and other exclosures to grazing by livestock would allow these areas to achieve their management 

objectives (e.g., PFC, potential natural community [PNC], fish and wildlife habitat).](STRIKEOUT) 

EXPLANATION: MSA indicates <3% of riparian segments are not functioning, thus there is no 

demonstrated need to close part of allotments. Nor is there any evidence from MSA that fisheries habitat 

is degraded due to grazing activities.

Response: There is no need to eliminate this statement. Closing riparian areas to livestock use is a valid 

way of achieving site objectives. This is a reasonable impact to report in this section.

A27-186 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing 

Comment: PAGE: A3-7 SECTION: Livestock Grazing RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE entirely 

EXPLANATION: Discussion assumes grazing harmful to wildlife habitat. Big game numbers would not 

have increased if the rangelands were not productive wildlife ranges.

Response: Big game numbers are currently at half of population objective (deer), below objective 

(moose), or approximately at population objective (pronghorn). Only elk, (about 8% of the big game 

animals in herd units in the planning area) are slightly above objective. This is likely at least partly 

because they are artificially fed in the winter. 

Appendix 3 of the draft EIS has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: A3-7 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [New water developments could 

also bring livestock use into previously unused areas, decreasing available forage during critical time 

periods.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: See above comment.

Response: New water developments have always been analyzed for the effect they would have on the 

surrounding environment, including the reliance on forage by species other than livestock. 

Range Management/PFC 

Comment: The WDA recommends the development of new AMPs and evaluation of all current AMPs in 

the PFO due to land-use changes impacting rangeland conditions since the mid-1970s. The AMP is a 

valuable tool for the management of domestic livestock to enhance rangelands, but only if it is utilized. 

Response: BLM’s ability to evaluate AMPs is subject to funding and manpower. At present, our 

workload priorities are largely governed by both the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and land use planning, 

such as the development of this RMP. 

Realistically, today’s evaluation efforts may be directed more at mitigation potential relative to programs 

such as the Jonah Interagency Office and the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative. When 

opportunities for such mitigation occur within an existing AMP, then evaluation of that AMP should 

occur. Opportunities for development on other non-AMP landscapes will raise the question of whether an 

AMP is warranted. 

Comment: Acreage set aside as unleased land must remain unleased until function returns through 

reclamation in other developed areas of the PFO. Due to the interspersion of state and private lands and 

different mineral ownership in federal areas labeled as unleased, there is no assurance that any unleased 

acreage will remain unleased during the life of the PRMP (ie: drainage prompting BLM to issue leases). 

In the absence of successful reclamation on developed fields, designated land categories must remain 

constant through the life of PRMP. 

Unleased federal land is needed as a safehaven for wildlife and domestic livestock. With increased 

surface disturbance throughout the PFO, wildlife can congregate on private lands, thus impacting the 

private landowner. For domestic livestock, who are typically removed for a period during early 

reclamation, alternatives for forage need to remain available for grazing. The agriculture industry needs 

assurances that functioning landscapes exist to provide forage for domestic livestock during the 

continuous decline of available forage due to energy development. 

Additionally, the WDA encourages “Operator Committed Measures for Agriculture” as a segment of 

leasing proposals to the BLM. These voluntary measures are needed to recognize the energy development 

impact to agriculture and plan for the current habitat reclamation and future use of the allotments by 

domestic livestock.

Pinedale RMP A27-187 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

Response: The intent of implementing the Unavailable for Leasing areas is to provide areas that are 

undeveloped through the life of the existing gas fields. Any leases offered to offset drainage from 

adjacent state- or privately-owned lands would be for small areas. Amendment of the RMP, a lengthy 

process involving full NEPA documentation through an EIS, would be required to change the areas 

available for leasing in the RMP. 

Comment: While the proposed actions in livestock grazing management include some drastic reductions 

in AUMs, the RMP states that it has only 65% of the planning area evaluated for compliance with the 

Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health. It also states that there is significant data lacking on the 

proper functionality of riparian areas. Determining management objectives on inconclusive scientific data 

does not appear to offer the best prescription for collaborative resource management. 

Response: The completed RMP will not interfere with our ability to incorporate necessary management 

changes that may be identified through ongoing assessments.

Comment: PAGE: 1-8 SECTION: 1.4.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Issue 11: Livestock Grazing and 

Vegetation Management Most of the planning area is licensed for livestock grazing. Maintaining grazing 

levels is necessary to sustain the agriculture component of the economy that has been a mainstay 

historically and remains an important part of the custom and culture. Populations of certain big game 

species directly affect and in some cases interfere with meeting or maintaining vegetation to comply with 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Energy development may also displace livestock grazing 

and reclamation success may vary by site. EXPLANATION: As noted above, maintaining current levels 

of grazing and meeting rangeland health standards are two important issues that the RMP omits even 

though they were significant enough to be addressed in the MSA.

Response: Livestock grazing is dependent on the vegetation resource. Continuation of livestock grazing 

is addressed through resolution of Issue 3, Vegetation Management. The contribution of livestock grazing 

to the economy is included in the impact analysis in Chapter 4.

Comment: PAGE: 2-118, SECTION: 2.5.5., RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Enhance livestock 

grazing; maintain a balance between commodity production and the enhancement of wildlife habitat, 

watershed, and riparian areas; maintain range condition at, or improve range condition toward, the 

Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health; improve forage production and ecological conditions to 

benefit livestock, wildlife habitat, watershed values, and riparian areas; maintain or improve riparian 

habitat to enhance forage conditions, wildlife habitat, and stream quality; and achieve riparian health as 

measured by proper functioning condition as a minimum standard of stability on all riparian areas. 

EXPLANATION: BLM should have a goal of no net loss of grazing. PFC is a measure not a standard. It 

is more useful where there is free-flowing water rather than in all riparian areas.

Response: The mission of BLM is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands. It 

may be necessary to reduce or increase grazing to achieve that mission. With thorough understanding of 

the methodology, proper functioning condition (PFC) assessments can be appropriately applied to all 

riparian areas.

Comment: PAGE:2-138 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:REVISE d. Treated areas would 

generally be rested from livestock grazing for a minimum of two full growing seasons after treatment 

unless the appropriate level of environmental analysis determined that shorter durations would be 

adequate. Analysis could indicate a need for a longer or shorter rest period. 

Response: The first sentence addresses the potential for a rest period shorter than 2 years; this addition is 

not necessary.

A27-188 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing 

Livestock vs Conservation 

Comment: One glaring reoccurring theme in the discussion of Alternative 3 (and some discussion in 

Alternative 4 as well) is the alluded pitting of the livestock industry against the conservation concerns 

under Livestock Grazing Management. The management objectives and actions clearly intend to create a 

wedge between conservation-oriented actions and livestock actions. It also appears that both livestock and 

wildlife uses on public lands will be the sacrifices through the implementation of the single-use activity of 

oil and gas development. It seems unwarranted and unnecessary and the management objectives should 

be reconsidered for this section. 

Response: It is reasonable to analyze an alternative that would close allotments in the active gas fields. It 

was placed in Alternative 3 because it is the most restrictive alternative, not as an attempt to pit interest 

groups against each other. BLM can choose elements from any alternative in formulating the Proposed 

Plan in the final EIS. Alternatives 3 and 4 provide for large areas to be unavailable to leasing and 

development in an attempt to provide a balance of uses on a landscape scale. 

Comment: I have been reviewing the draft RMP and it disturbs me to see that one of your strategies has 

been to “Divide and Conquer” by pitting the ranchers against the recreationalists against the 

conservationists, why else would you limit the AUM’s allowed in Alt. 3 when you also limit the gas 

drilling and recreational areas, doesn’t limiting the gas and recreational areas then allow for grazing to 

stay at the same level? But if you open up more area for drilling as in Alt.4 you will then allow more 

AUM’s?

Response: It is reasonable to analyze an alternative that would close allotments in the active gas fields. It 

was placed in Alternative 3 because it is the most restrictive alternative, not as an attempt to pit interest 

groups against each other. BLM can choose elements from any alternative in formulating the Proposed 

Plan in the final EIS. 

Collaboration 

Comment: Success in meeting multiple use resource management goals under Alternative #4 is directly 

dependent on effective application of adaptive management. While WSGA supports adaptive 

management as a theoretical approach, we are necessarily concerned by the uncertainty that it creates for 

grazing permittees and other users. Its practical application requires close ongoing communication among 

managers and users at all levels. Potentially affected livestock operators must have a seat at the table in 

management discussions, project development and mitigation efforts.

Response: We fully agree as to the importance of including the grazing permittee at all levels of 

management discussions and project development. 

Comment: 4.) Livestock operators, specifically those most affected, must have a seat at the table on 

mitigation boards and projects where grazing may be affected.

Response: The PFO is aware of the importance of including affected grazing permittees as it develops 

mitigation projects. The makeup of mitigation boards would be determined at the site-specific project 

level, such as for the Jonah Interagency Office. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-119, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD k. BLM will work closely with 

conservation districts and local Wyoming grazing districts to facilitate management of rangelands, 

monitoring of rangeland health and planning for projects to enhance rangeland condition on public and 

private lands. EXPLANATION:RMP needs to recognize commitments made by BLM in 2003 MOU.

Pinedale RMP A27-189 
Appendix 27—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

Response: Acknowledgement of BLM’s working relationship with local and state governments is 

included in Chapter 3.

Comment: PAGE: 4.45, SECTION: 4.6.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE forage reserve 

EXPLANATION: Notion of a forage reserve only works if the area available is compatible with ranch 

operations. The very few unallocated acres are not in the development areas, so there is little basis for 

assuming these areas could provide economically efficient relief. Forage reserves that are not 

economically efficient and effective are inconsistent with local plans and policies. The allotments are 

fully committed to grazing with the exception of a few small areas. Thus establishment of forage reserve 

is of questionable merit unless another ranch is removed form the economic and community.

Response: The establishment of forage reserves will include appropriate levels of coordination, 

cooperation, and consultation prior to finalization. 

Comment: PAGE: G-1 CHANGE: ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN – An AMP is prepared in 

consultation, cooperation and coordination with the permittee(s), lessee(s), and landowners involved, 

district grazing advisory boards, and any State having lands within the area covered by the AMP [and 

other affected interests.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: In addition to consultation, FLPMA requires 

cooperation and coordination. 43 U.S.C. § 1752(d). Also, the interested public is only entitled to notice of 

a proposed AMP and the opportunity for public participation in its development. Duty to consult, 

cooperate and coordinate does not automatically apply to public. 43 C.F.R. § 4120.2(c).

Response: There is no district grazing advisory board. The definition is appropriate.

A27-190 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Minerals 

General Comment Responses 

Comments: 

• Alternative 3, as well as the Preferred Alternative, unreasonable close entire areas from resource 

development. These areas might be suited for gas development if the proper mitigation strategies 

are developed. Again, the alternatives needlessly place restrictions that would be more 

appropriate with site specific environmental review for specific projects. 

• The Pinedale area is a vast field of natural gas and Alternative 3 provides for less than half that 

area to be developed for minerals this in turn would mean a great socio-economic loss for the 

region. In addition, Alternative 3 goes too far with imposing unnecessary development 

restrictions and does not balance the production of oil and gas resources with environmental 

resources. 

Response: The draft EIS presents four alternatives that range from strong commodity production to 

strong environmental protection. The plan does take the nation’s energy needs into account, but it also 

takes the other resource values within the planning area into account, as required by numerous laws and 

regulations. Alternative 2 purposely addresses enhanced commodity production, whereas Alternative 3 

purposely addresses enhanced surface resource protection. This was done to meet the NEPA requirement 

to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. 

Comments: 

• The Preferred Alternative is based on a limited RFD that one could argue is outdated. Any 

Record of Decision should be based on a more accurate RFD based on the size and scope of both 

the Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline. 

• The RFD is inadequate. The newly discovered natural gas resource in the Pinedale Anticline 

justifies an update to the RFD. 

• Outdated information of potential mineral resource areas needs to be updated based on new 

findings and current field production and well results. This could affect all acreage and 

percentages and most likely will require that additional analyses be conducted. The updated 

mineral resource data should also include deep (Rock Springs and Hilliard Formations, or, in the 

Pinedale Anticline example, depths approaching 20,000 ft.) oil and gas potential, which should 

also be analyzed based on current findings. 

Response: The final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil 

and gas resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other oil 

and gas development environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area 

assume full field development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a 

reasonable and foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period. 

Comments: 

• Set a slower, more reasonable pace for new gas development; Cluster drilling infrastructure so it 

minimizes impact on the land and wildlife; Follow seasonal drilling restrictions; and 

PERMANENTLY PROTECT certain critical areas from any new leasing or development. 

Pinedale RMP A27-191 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

• I understand how rich this land is for energy development. So in the areas that are decided upon 

development, please take your time. Use careful EA’s, cluster the developments, and adopt & 

enforce meaningful mitigation & monitoring processes. 

Response: Development rates and infrastructure scenarios are project-level issues that can be addressed 

through project-level EISs. “Clustering” is currently occurring on the Pinedale Anticline and to a lesser 

extent in the Jonah Field where multiple wells (sometimes as many as 32) are developed from a single 

well pad. Seasonal restrictions are already designed to minimize impacts to the target species during 

crucial life-cycle periods. Permanently setting areas aside from leasing or development is beyond the 

authority of this RMP. Such “permanent” set asides require congressional approval. 

Comments: 

• Prohibit oil and gas leasing and development in environmentally sensitive areas. These include 

big-game migration corridors, bottlenecks, winter and transitional ranges, sage grouse nesting 

habitat, the Green and New Fork River corridors, the scenic Wind River and Wyoming Fronts 

and areas of critical environmental concern 

• I am most concerned with the recent draft that proposes to open the upper Green River, upper 

New Fork and Hoback Rim areas for oil and gas leasing. Please make this area Unavailable for 

Leasing in the new RMP. 

• While we prefer the management plan laid out in Alternative Three, we believe it needs 

improvements to truly reflect your multiple use mandate and to provide the necessary protection 

for the significant cultural resources under your control. Therefore, we would urge you to adopt 

the following additional safeguards to Alternative Three: Require that development be paced so 

that major new gas fields are not allowed until development in existing and expanded fields has 

been completed 

Response: BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of valid existing leases. The 

alternatives consider a number of areas that could be made unavailable for leasing. However, even in 

these areas, valid existing leaseholders would have the right to develop those leases while they remain in 

effect.

Comments: 

• Considering the economic benefits which should result from extracting these important natural 

gas resources, I urge the BLM to remove the unnecessary drilling restrictions and stipulations 

which you have written as alternatives in the Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement. Your Reasonable Foreseeable information including updated in project-specific 

EIS/EA data - as well as from other sources. 

• It appears to me that, even though your RMP in principal is well prepared, too many restrictions 

and stipulations are being placed on the energy companies. This must translate into higher prices, 

if the companies are held to these conditions. I personally cannot imagine them even being 

interested in investing in the development of these important resources, if they cannot make 

enough profit. I honestly believe you need to remove the restrictions in the alternatives of the 

plan. 

Response: BLM is required to manage the federal lands and mineral estates under its jurisdiction for 

multiple use. This draft EIS does address reduced restrictions in the areas analyzed as available for 

intensive oil and gas development.

A27-192 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Comments: 

• I am, however, concerned with the many restrictions which are part of the alternatives in the 

document. An RMP should be much more general in nature and should not be site-specific. 

Including these restrictions in the RMP may discourage the major energy companies from 

developing the Pinedale Anticline potential further. 

• Restrictions such as the seasonal restriction and surface disturbance portion of the RMP need to 

be removed from the document, if we want the energy companies to invest their resources. 

Seasonal restrictions would create a seasonal work force, which has been seen to be detriment to 

any economic stimuli and severely reduce production output. New technologies should no longer 

require these kind of restrictions. 

Response: BLM is required to manage the federal lands and mineral estates under its jurisdiction for 

multiple use. This draft EIS addresses reduced restrictions in the areas analyzed as available for intensive 

oil and gas development. It also maintains restrictions as measures to protect important wildlife and other 

resource values in areas with lower development potential. More detailed site-specific analysis does occur 

through project-level analysis documents, i.e., EAs and EISs. 

Comments: 

• BLM partially updated the level of development anticipated in the Pinedale Resource area in 

September of 2006 when it issued the RFD Scenario Final Report by acknowledging that up to 

3,100 wells may be drilled in the Jonah Field. See RFD Scenario Final Report, pg. 51. 

Nonetheless, the 2006 report was still inaccurate because it estimated that 2,450 additional wells 

would be drilled in the Pinedale Anticline area compared to the 4,400 wells that have been 

proposed. The BLM’s projection for the Pinedale Anticline area is thus still 2,000 wells too low. 

The BLM must significantly increase the level of projected development in light of these 

approved and proposed projects, as well as any other potential development projects in the 

western portions of the planning area and, in particular, in the Big Piney/La Barge CAP and Riley 

Ridge areas. 

• Further, the BLM must update the RFD Scenario in light of the BLM’s recent approval of the 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project (“JIDP”) in March of 2006, and the proposal from the Pinedale 

Anticline operators to significantly increase development. The unrestricted RFD Scenario for the 

Pinedale Resource Area anticipated a total of 7,903 wells drilled from up to 5,687 wells. The 

JIDP approved the drilling and development of 3,100 wells from 3,100 pads, and the BLM 

recently released a SDEIS for the Pinedale Anticline area proposing the approval of 4,399 wells 

from 250 new well pads (over the 700 producing wells/wellpads authorized in the PAPA ROD in 

2000). The operators in the South Piney area have also proposed at least 210 coalbed natural gas 

wells, a proposal currently being studied by the BLM. Thus; at the very least, the BLM is aware 

of 7,709 wells that have been permitted or actually proposed, before the RMP has even been 

approved. This level of development surpasses the BLM’s anticipated levels of development 

under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, and is only a few wells below the unrestricted RFD Scenario or the 

RFD Scenario for Alternative 2. 

• Appendix 10 of the RMP, DEIS provides estimates of “reasonably foreseeable development” for 

oil and natural gas in the PRA. However, that discussion appears to exclude a considerable 

amount of the past, present and foreseeable development in the Resource Area. The RMP DEIS 

states that the projected total number of well locations (non-CBNG) in the planning area during 

2001-2020 would be 7,927 conventional gas wells for Alternative 2 and 7,836 conventional gas 

wells for Alternative 4 (the BLM’s preferred alternative). However, more than 1,500 other oil and 

Pinedale RMP A27-193 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

gas wells have been drilled in the Big Piney / La Barge area. The PAPA Draft SEIS projects 

4,399 conventional gas wells in the Pinedale Anticline through 2025. And the Jonah Infill Final 

EIS projects up to 3,100 additional conventional gas wells, on top of 533 previously approved gas 

wells. Collectively, these add up to more than 9,500 conventional oil and gas wells. This total 

exceeds the RMP DEIS’s projections even for Alternative 2 (the maximum drilling scenario). 

Thus, the RMP DEIS does not present an accurate picture of past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future drilling development. 

Response: The final RFD report completed in September of 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the 

oil and gas resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other 

oil and gas development environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area 

assume full field development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a 

reasonable and foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period. BLM’s 

Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) recently conducted a review of the RFD 

(June 28, 2007) and concluded that the number presented in the draft EIS is current, valid, and applicable.

Comments: 

• I would like you to know that I am strongly against allowing any mineral leasing in the Upper 

Green, Upper New Fork, and Hoback Rim areas. This is some of the most beautiful country in the 

U.S., why ruin it. You have already allowed the area south of Pinedale to be destroyed. You have 

destroyed the wintering grounds for antelope, deer, and sage chickens. Now you want to take 

away the home for the elk also. The crystal clear streams and lakes will fill with mud and debris 

from run off and erosion. Trout fishing will be destroyed. Please don’t allow drilling or leasing in 

these areas. 

• This proposed area, Upper Green, Upper New Fork and Hoback Rim of the Greater Yellowstone 

should be preserved and classified as Unavailable for leasing. They apparently were considered to 

have values that outweighed their industrialization and why they were protected by the current 

moratorium in the first place. 

Response: The RMP is designed to address a reasonable range of alternatives. Alternative 3 analyzed 

making much of the federal lands and minerals in Upper Green unavailable for new oil and gas leases. 

Management of federal lands and mineral estates in the Upper Green has been addressed in the final EIS. 

Comments: 

• I’m more concerned with the impact drilling in a volatile geologic area may have on human life. 

The super magma chamber under Yellowstone is about ready to blow. Are you willing to be the 

one who OKs the opening of that Pandora’s box? Think about it. 

• Lastly, you may end up with far more energy than you can handle, as Yellowstone is a 

supervolcano that destroyed most of North America thousands of years ago. It’s due, in fact, to go 

off any time, as studies indicate it does so every 250,000 years, and the last was just over that 

length of time in the past. That means that any gas-saturated magma will be getting relatively 

close to the surface, and a single hole that exposes ANY of it to air will cause ALL of it to 

separate and at once. That means it will go off immediately upon contact with air. Please 

reconsider! 

Response: There is no current seismic evidence to suggest the magma chamber extends under the 

planning area.

A27-194 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Unique Comments 

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes 

Comment: PAGE: 2-122, EXPLANATION: If the lands are leased, BLM has limited authority to limit 

data acquisition. Relatively few lessees explore areas where they do not have a lease.

Response: BLM has the authority to manage disruptive activities on public lands. This section 

appropriately lays out management actions that would apply to geophysical activities.

Comment: PAGE:2-150,SECTION:Unavailable Areas RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Withdrawals 

EXPLANATION: The conditions are duplicative and repetitive. The above comments apply to the 

“unavailable” areas that should be withdrawn.

Response: The conditions need to be stated clearly as they apply to each type of oil and gas management 

area.

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-187, 4-197: language discussing evaporation ponds for condensate 

water. Recommendations: What is condensate water? Please define.

Response: This is a typographical error; it has been changed to “produced water” in the final EIS. 

Comment: Page 4-70 Alternative 4, The 7,136 wells (federal minerals) projected under this alternative 

would potentially extract 19,168 BCF of natural gas and 150 million barrels of oil during the life of the 

plan, which is an 8% reduction in the projected number of wells and a 5% reduction in the projected gas 

and oil volume from the unrestricted estimates and a 1% reduction of production from continuation of 

current management (alternative 1). Comment: BLM must explain how the 7,136 well figure was derived. 

Response: The 7,136 figure is derived from the RFD, see Table 4-2 on page 4-48 of the draft EIS.

Comment: Literature Cited Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd edition. Saunders, 

Philadelphia. Smith, R. L. 1974. Ecology and Field Biology, 2nd edition. Harper and Row. APPENDIX 3 

MITIGATION GUIDELINES – ALTERNATIVES 2, 3, AND 4 Page A3-1 Performance based 

stipulations Comment: The term “performance-based stipulations” is not adequately defined or explained. 

Page A3-2 Permitting and Authorization Process Comment: This section is a helpful summary/roadmap 

of the BLM’s permitting process. The pre-application consultation process could be beneficial. It is 

important that the terms and conditions agreed upon during the pre-application consultation not change, 

unless no other option is available, throughout the rest of the process. 

Page A3-3 Exception Process Comment: It is encouraging that BLM will limit its “exception” 

consultation to relevant agencies. 

Page A3-4 No Surface Occupancy Guidelines Comment: BLM provides for a waiver, exception, or 

modification of an NSO decision; but once in place, the reality is it would take a Herculean effort to undo 

an NSO planning decision. Before implementation, the BLM should take a “hard look” at potential NSO 

areas to ensure they are clearly supported by valid data. 

Page A3-4 Performance-Based Stipulations and Mitigation Comment: This section discusses adaptive 

management and the role of management, research and monitoring. Operators currently monitor various 

resources and submit that information to the BLM. The BLM, however, is under staffed and cannot 

always analyze that data. For adaptive management to work, the data must be analyzed.

Pinedale RMP A27-195 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale. Appendix 3 has been 

revised in the final EIS.

Comment: Alternative 4 would prohibit water disposal pits in the planning area. See RMP DEIS, pgs. 2-

118, 2-120 - 122. Unfortunately, the phrase “water disposal pits” is not defined. The BLM must define 

this phase in order to provide operators with the information needed to comment on the proposed RMP. 

Does the phrase apply to disposal pits for produced water sometimes associated with coalbed natural gas 

development, or reserve and completion pits which are a normal and integral part of oil and gas 

development? If the BLM intends to prohibit reserve and completion pits, the BLM is significantly 

limiting operators’ ability to develop the oil and gas resources under their leasehold. The BLM should not 

prohibit reserve and completion pits. The BLM must be aware that closed-loop drilling systems are not 

economic or technically feasible under all circumstances. As discussed above, once the BLM has issued 

an oil and gas lease conveying the right to access and develop the leasehold, the BLM cannot later impose 

unreasonable mitigation measures that take away those rights. See Conner v. Burford, 84 F.2d 1441, 

1449-50 (9th Cir. 1988); 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2 (2006) (BLM can impose only “reasonable mitigation 

measures . . . to minimize adverse impacts . . . to the extent consistent with lease rights granted”). 

Requiring closed-loop drilling systems may actually lead to the loss of significant reserves if projects 

become uneconomic. The BLM must clarify the proposed requirement regarding water disposal pits.

Response: Definitions of water disposal pits, water evaporation pits, surface discharge, temporary pits, 

and permanent pits have been added to the glossary in the final EIS. The restriction applies to off-location 

produced water disposal pits. It does not apply to reserve, completion, or cuttings pits that are constructed 

on the well pad. This clarification has been added to the final EIS. The language regarding water disposal 

pits has been revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: Page Number & Issue: 2-9: “4. Fluid mineral activities that would typically require an 

exception during seasonal closure periods would be road construction or improvement, well pad 

construction or expansion, well drilling operations, well completion operations, regularly scheduled 

workover operations, geophysical exploration, pipeline construction, setting production facilities, 

constructing compressors, and installing power lines. Activities that would be permissible during seasonal 

closure periods without requiring an exception would include daily operations; road maintenance 

(including snow removal); remedial workover operations immediately essential to maintaining well 

production; workover, well logging, and operations that do not alter the wellbore or casing; and regularly 

required (for example, monthly, every 2 months, every 3 months, etc.) production facility and pipeline 

maintenance. These activities would be permissible if operations are confined to an existing well pad 

and/or access road, require no longer than 48 to 72 hours to complete, are conducted during daylight 

hours only, and involve no new surface disturbance.” Recommendations: BLM should provide citations 

or delete the last sentence in the paragraph: “These activities would be permissible if operations are 

confined to an existing well pad and/or access road, require no longer than 48 to 72 hours to complete, are 

conducted during daylight hours only, and, involve no new surface disturbance.” Specifically, putting 

limitations on time frames and hours of accessibility during the day for activities not requiring an 

exception is not realistic for oil and gas operations.

Response: This section has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-64: “If, however, such equipment is not available and an operator 

cannot commence operations without it, field development delays would occur.” Recommendations: 

Delete sentence. See previous comments under Section II. General Concerns.

A27-196 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: The referenced text is stating the impact that would occur if Alternative 3 were implemented. 

Because the text is based on a recommended mitigation in the wildlife portion of Alternative 3, it is 

appropriate to state what the anticipated impact to oil and gas development would be. 

Comment: 3. Inconsistent values Many of the impact estimates (such as the total number of acres 

available for oil and gas leasing, the total number of wells, etc.) appear in several places throughout the 

document. However close examination of these numbers indicates that they are not consistent. For 

example the text on page 4-61 presents acres available for “intensive fluid mineral leasing...” and 

“minimally developed areas” for Alternative 3. These two figures add up to more acres available for oil 

and gas leasing than the total mentioned several times throughout the document, leading one to wonder 

exactly how many acres would be available under this alternative and why a lower number is so often 

used in the various tables and in the estimate of certain impacts on the oil and gas industry. Further, one is 

left to assume that these inconsistencies occur throughout the document.

Response: Acreages have been checked for consistency and updated in the final EIS.

Comment: we’re talking about the NSO area in the northern part of the -- of this area on Alternative 4. I 

think it leads people to believe that there won’t any occupancy up there. There won’t be any drilling 

going on. And I think that’s going to fool people. There’s a lot of different ownerships and minerals up 

there, and if a private landowner allows a well in there, they’re going to be there directionally drilling for 

quite a period of time going different directions. And so if people believe that there won’t be any wells up 

there, I think they’re fooling themselves, and I think the BLM is trying to fool the people there. 

Response: The RMP only has jurisdiction over the BLM-administered federal lands and minerals within 

the planning area. The map depicting the large-block NSO in the Upper Green includes all ownership 

only for map clarity. It does not intend to imply that private or state minerals are encumbered by the 

designation. The draft EIS/RMP on page 1-9 states, “BLM decisions will not apply to private land with 

private mineral estate, federal lands administered by other federal agencies, or federal mineral estate 

administered by other federal agencies.”

Comment: PAGE: G-27 CHANGE: ZONE - Applied to the Pinedale RMP, these are areas where 

planned levels of oil and gas management activities are similar. Within a specific zone, the level of 

planned oil and gas development and the level of surface disturbance to support planned oil and gas 

operations are consistent. If disturbance or development exceeds the established levels, then parcels can 

move to other zones with more applicable levels of oil and gas management. EXPLANATION: 

Definition of “Zone” found in Pinedale Definitions document but not Pinedale RMP Glossary.

Response: RMP does not reference ZONE; therefore definition is not needed.

Comment: PAGE: A10-6 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: Using all 

mineral ownerships only confuses and does not add to public understanding.

Response: BLM disagrees. Well development does occur in the planning area on private and state 

minerals. It is important for the public to know this.

Comment: PAGE: G-2 CHANGE: APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DRILL. The approved APD is a 

contract permit between the operator and the Federal government and cannot be changed or modified 

unless authorized by BLM. EXPLANATION: The APD is not a contract but by its own terms a permit, to 

which there are no consequences to BLM if it fails to allow drilling operations. Specifically, the approval 

of an APD does not warrant or certify that the applicant holds legal or equitable title to the subject lease 

which would “entitle the applicant to conduct drilling operations.” 43 C.F.R. § 3162.3-1(I).

Pinedale RMP A27-197 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Response: The final EIS has been revised to remove the statement: “The approved APD is a contract 

between the operator and the federal government and cannot be changed or modified unless authorized by 

the BLM.”

Comment: PAGE:4-176 SECTION:4.16.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Mineral resource development 

would increase management requirements for fire suppression which are handled by the lessee. Impacts 

of fluid mineral resource development on fire management could include the introduction of additional 

ignition sources, barriers or impediments to fire areas, and increased fire risk potential as a result of 

increased access for recreational and other public land users. These impacts would generally be the same 

for leasable, locatable, and salable minerals. 

Response: BLM feels the statement is accurate and no revision is needed.

Comment: PAGE: 4.48, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Tables cited are not in either 

DEIS or Appendix 10. EXPLANATION; Missing tables.

Response: The correct citation is Tables A10-4 and A10-5 of the draft EIS. This has been corrected in the 

final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 4-48, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Replace [Unrestricted 

Development] (STRIKEOUT) with Standard Lease Stipulations EXPLANATION: IM 2004-89 specifies 

that the unconstrained option must use standard lease stipulations, ¶VIII. It is inaccurate to state 

“unrestricted development” because lease stipulations impose important constraints.

Response: The text on page 4-48 in the draft EIS has been changed from “unrestricted development” to 

“unrestricted development (only standard lease stipulations will be required).”

Comment: PAGE: 4.47, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise to use only high, 

medium and low. EXPLANATION: RMP does not follow mineral leasing handbook, which directs BLM 

to identify high, medium, and low potential. Should delete “very” and combine areas.

Response: The subject Bureau handbook is intended to provide guidance to assist in preparing these 

types of fluids determinations. Because it was determined that there was such a wide range in potential 

well counts within the planning area, additional potential categories were developed.

Comment: PAGE: 2-47 SECTION: 2.5.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD The private mineral 

estate with privately owned surface will not be affected by the minimally developed designation. 

EXPLANATION: The division of the planning area into minimally developed based on the land being 

east of Highway 191 is entirely arbitrary. The state highway was not located based on geology and the 

same trends on the west side of the road continue on the east side. Map 2-9 should be revised to omit the 

private lands from the classification. As currently presented, it fails to meet NEPA objectives of full 

disclosure and analysis of the impacts. 

Response: The draft EIS/RMP at page 1-9 states, “BLM decisions will not apply to private land with 

private mineral estate, federal lands administered by other federal agencies, or federal mineral estate 

administered by other federal agencies.” BLM feels this is sufficient.

Comment: PAGE: 2.47 SECTION: 2.5.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: Required to 

display the impacts by number of acres and wells. IM 2004-89 (Att. 1-7). Instead, discussion looks at 

anticipated production. EPCA requires display of acres and wells starting from the baseline (no action) 

and through each alternative. The tables for numbers of wells show pads, not acres and do not accurately 

A27-198 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

display surface disturbance acres by each alternative. IM on EPCA explicitly requires this display and the 

RMP and Appendix fail to conform. 

Response: Tables 4-2 and A10-1 of the draft EIS depict the projected wells for each alternative. Tables 

A10-2 and A10-3 of the draft EIS project the initial and long-term surface disturbance for each 

alternative.

Comment: PAGE: 2-126, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ¶7 Delete one sentence. [The SRMA would be 

administratively unavailable for fluid mineral leasing.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: Closing Scab Creek 

RMA (Front country) to mineral leasing inconsistent with rest of RMP. Area is already developed with 

roads etc. no rationale to close it. WSA portion is closed by law. 

Response: This proposed closure is consistent with the proposed management prescriptions for the other 

proposed Special Designation/Management Area (SD/MA)/ special recreation management areas, 

including the Wind River Front which includes the Scab Creek SRMA.

Comment: I implore the BLM to get good information on every resource and how they will be affected 

by oil and gas drilling prior finalizing any new RMP.

Response: The RMP is based on the best available information and data at the time the analysis was 

initiated, see Section 4.1.2 on page 4-2 of the draft EIS.

Comment: As presented, a combined proposed plan and draft impact statement which simultaneously 

does not adequately consider 25% of the planning area grossly distorts the impact analysis of each 

alternative. This is especially important because the Anticline’s approved and proposed growth, with 

several thousand new wells in that 25%, over a significantly longer period than the life of this proposed 

PRMP, is critical to how much of the planning area is committed to mineral development and how much 

should be permanently made unavailable for mineral development and instead be available for other uses. 

Response: The draft EIS/RMP analysis and data are for the planning area as a whole. Analysis and data 

specific to the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline are found in the field development EISs for those fields and 

is not repeated in the draft EIS/RMP. The RFD does include the projected development in the Jonah and 

Pinedale Anticline fields and, therefore, the impact analysis does reflect the impacts associate with these 

fields.

Comment: Based on statistical data in the Mineral Report, the hydrocarbon resources within the planning 

area may be placed within one of the following categories for potential development: very high, high, 

moderate, low, very low, and no potential for development. Very high potential for hydrocarbon 

development indicates areas in which average well density is anticipated to be more than 500 wells per 

township (36 square miles). 

• High potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas in which average well density is 

anticipated to be more than 100 wells per township. 

• Moderate potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas in which average well density is 

anticipated to be 20 to 100 wells per township 

• Low potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas in which average well density is 

anticipated to be less than 20 wells per township. 

• Very low potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas in which average well density is 

anticipated to be less than 2 wells per township. 

Pinedale RMP A27-199 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

• No potential for hydrocarbon developments indicates areas in which no wells are anticipated. 

Comment: We object to the proposal to place very high, high, and moderate potential in an NSO 

or unavailable categories without proper justification. Based upon our review of the DEIS, no 

justification has been provided.

Response: Portions of areas designated as having very high, high, and moderate potential for the 

development of oil and gas resources also have very high surface resource values for VRM, wildlife, 

recreation, watershed, cultural resources, etc. The objectives established to protect or enhance the surface 

resource values are the justification for the unavailable and/or Large Block NSO designations.

Comment: In discussing why this RMP could not support the closing of some of the identified ACEC 

designations or Special Management Areas, the document states “Closure of the entire planning areas to 

new oil and gas leasing would eliminate development and production in areas where conflicts can be 

mitigated or don’t exist. Closure contradicts BLM policy of keeping public lands open and available for 

mineral exploration”. 

This statement does not adequately represent the proposed ACEC designations. Suggestions by the public 

to increase some acreages in current ACEC areas and the creation of several new ACEC areas that 

contain unique and qualifying features for protection does not mean that the public is asking to close “the 

entire planning area to new oil and gas development.” The BLM has recognized in the RMP that the 

public scoping comments indicated high levels of concern about the rate and scale of oil and gas 

development (Chapter 2). Additionally, it is mystifying why the BLM would make this statement in light 

of the earlier statement from the BLM (Chapter 2) that 734,000 acres of the 1.2 million acres are already 

leased. With the proposal of 7,836 new wells on 734,000 acres the BLM is advocating for in their 

Preferred Alternative and the current 176,000 acres that are already under oil and gas development, it 

seems rather disingenuous to the public to make such a statement about closing the entire planning area to 

new leasing. 

Response: The referenced text solely applies to an alternative that would close the entire planning area to 

oil and gas leasing, which was considered but was eliminated from detailed analysis. It does not apply to 

ACEC or SD/MA considerations.

Comment: Maps Page 2-7, 2-8, 2-9 Commentor WGFD. The Intensively Developed field polygon on the 

PAPA crest should be modified to reflect the preferred alternative for the PAPA SEIS

Response: The ROD for the RMP/EIS will be consistent with decisions made in the ROD for the 

supplemental EIS to the PAPA. 

Comment: Residential areas not presently leased should be designated “unavailable for leasing”. As 

leases expire the same designation should apply. (There seems to be plenty of land already available for 

leasing)

Response: This would only provide “selective protection” for those residential properties with underlying 

federal minerals that are not currently leased and could provide “protection” for some residential 

properties with leased federal minerals should those leases expire without the lease being developed. It 

would not provide any protection for residential properties with underlying private mineral estates, nor 

would it provide protection for residential properties developed in the future on lands within underlying 

federal minerals. It is also contrary to the intent of Congress when it established the various laws that 

allowed for the transfer/patent of federal lands to private entities, but retained the mineral estates in 

federal ownership to be developed for overall benefit of the American public at large. 

A27-200 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Comment: Page Number & Issue: 2-118: “j. No water disposal pits would be permitted.” 

Recommendations: Delete portion of statement providing that water disposal pits are not allowed. BLM 

should clarify whether it means disposal pits or evaporation pits. Terminology used is not regular 

terminology in operations. Evaporation pits should be considered in these areas. 

Response: This management action has been clarified in the Final EIS. Definitions of water disposal pits, 

water evaporation pits and surface discharge have been added to the glossary in the FEIS. 

Comment: Alternative 4 would prohibit water disposal pits in the planning area. See RMP DEIS, pgs. 2-

118, 2-120 - 122. Unfortunately, the phrase “water disposal pits” is not defined. The BLM must define 

this phase in order to provide operators with the information needed to comment on the proposed RMP. 

Does the phrase apply to disposal pits for produced water sometimes associated with coalbed natural gas 

development, or reserve and completion pits which are a normal and integral part of oil and gas 

development? If the BLM intends to prohibit reserve and completion pits, the BLM is significantly 

limiting operators’ ability to develop the oil and gas resources under their leasehold. The BLM should not 

prohibit reserve and completion pits. The BLM must be aware that closed-loop drilling systems are not 

economic or technically feasible under all circumstances. As discussed above, once the BLM has issued 

an oil and gas lease conveying the right to access and develop the leasehold, the BLM cannot later impose 

unreasonable mitigation measures that take away those rights. See Conner v. Burford, 84 F.2d 1441, 

1449-50 (9th Cir. 1988); 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2 (2006) (BLM can impose only “reasonable mitigation 

measures . . . to minimize adverse impacts . . . to the extent consistent with lease rights granted”). 

Requiring closed-loop drilling systems may actually lead to the loss of significant reserves if projects 

become uneconomic. The BLM must clarify the proposed requirement regarding water disposal pits. 

Response: Definitions of water disposal pits, water evaporation pits, and surface discharge have been 

added to the glossary in the final EIS. The restriction applies to off-location produced water disposal pits. 

It does not apply to reserve, completion, or cuttings pits that are constructed on the well pad. This 

clarification has been added to the proposed RMP final EIS. 

Comment: Historically, analyses by land management agencies of alternatives that emphasize resource 

extraction alternatives (oil and gas drilling, mining, timber) emphasized the benefits of extraction and 

ignored the costs. Failure to include all the costs of an oil and gas 5 drilling proposal has two distorting 

influences on the decision making process. First, the alternatives that emphasize drilling appear more 

attractive than they actually are, and second, the opportunity costs of conservation-oriented alternatives 

will appear greater than they really are. Agency planners must provide a full accounting of the costs 

associated with extraction activities. Only when all the costs and benefits are fully accounted for can a 

truly informed assessment of the alternatives occur. 

Response: A true cost-benefit analysis, including analysis of non-market values, is beyond the scope of 

the RMP. However, qualitative discussion of nonmarket values and impacts has been added to Chapter 4. 

Comment: Page: 3.39, Section: 3.7.5, Explanation: Exclusion area needs to be withdrawn pursuant to 

FLPMA’s withdrawal procedures. Comments #89, 207. 

Response: BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP. 

Comment: Where produced waters would be used for drilling (before the surface casing is installed), dust 

suppression, or reclamation, require treatment to drinking water standards. To minimize the release of 

potential contaminants such as benzene and PAHs, require or encourage the use of distillation over 

reverse osmosis in the treatment of produced waters. o Discourage disposal of produced waters through 

deep-well injection. Prohibit injecting produced waters with lower quality into any Class I, II, III or IV 

Pinedale RMP A27-201 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

ground water. Injection should not reduce quality in ground waters that have potentially beneficial human 

uses. When produced waters would be re-injected, require best available monitoring to prevent loss of 

integrity of aquifer seals. The RMP should also include direction to comport with “EPA regulations 

requiring that the injection pressure must remain less than the fracture gradient, which, at higher pressures 

would result in artificially fracturing the overlying rock, possibly creating pathways to other aquifers or 

the surface” [39]. o Where use of treated produced water could result in adverse effects to surface waters, 

ground waters or other components of the environment, the RMP should require the use of “green” dust 

palliatives that will not increase salinity in ground or surface waters and will not pose any contamination 

risks. 

Response: Operating standards and BMPs for management of produced water are presented in 

Appendix 3, to the extent of BLM authority and within the scope of the RMP. 

Comments on Alternatives 

Comment: The overall minerals management under Alternative 3 is inappropriate because it 

unreasonably limits oil and gas development. The BLM is effectively foreclosing oil and gas development 

in the Pinedale Resource Area outside of the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Fields. 

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to present a reasonable range of alternatives and make 

projections of the impacts associated with each of those alternatives. Accordingly, the draft EIS projects 

varying levels of impacts to air quality, wildlife, and socioeconomic values, as well as to other resource 

values. Alternative 4 provides a midrange of impacts between the higher level of commodity production 

in Alternative 2 and the higher level of surface resource protection in Alternative 3. Even under 

Alternative 3, “Existing oil and gas or other mineral lease rights would be honored”. 

Comment: On page 2-31, the BLM incorrectly states that the entire planning area, other than the 7,636-

acre Scab Creek area, would be open to consideration for leasing, exploration, and development of oil and 

gas, despite the fact that 172,500 acres are unavailable for leasing under Alternative 1 in the Wind River 

Front. See RMP DEIS, pgs. 2-175, 4-52, Map 2-1. Another 41,300 acres is available with only No 

Surface Occupancy Restrictions thus indirectly prohibiting most oil and gas development by making 

development more costly or technically infeasible. See RMP DEIS, pgs. 2-175, 4-47.

Response: The referenced statement is a direct recapitulation of text from the existing RMP approved in 

1988. Alternative 1 would continue implementation of the decisions in the 1988 plan. It is important to 

note the statement is that other than Scab Creek area, “the entire planning area would be open to 

CONSIDERATION for leasing . . . .” It does not state the entire area would be “OFFERED for leasing . . 

.” The leasing moratorium instituted in 2000 was intended to withhold those lands from leasing until they 

could be reevaluated through an update/revision of the 1988 RMP. This draft EIS/RMP accomplishes 

this. If Alternative 1 is selected, the leasing moratorium would expire and those lands would be available 

for leasing “consideration” as prescribed in the referenced text. The text as written on page 2-31 of the 

draft EIS is correct. The referenced NSO restrictions are again a direct carryover from the 1988 RMP, and 

they do provide for development of the underlying mineral resource through offsite techniques. 

Comment: In the final alternative selection, great care should be taken to ensure that development takes 

place in a manner that maximizes development of existing resources, contemplates protection of surface 

values and considers the long-term value of the natural resources being considered for development. 

Response: The existing analysis in the draft EIS/RMP and substantive public comment will be 

considered in the development of the final EIS.

A27-202 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Comment: As indicated above, the restrictions placed on oil and gas development under Alternative 3 are 

far too onerous and unreasonable. The increases in areas unavailable to leasing or only available with 

NSO or other restrictions, the increases in VRM Class II designations, and the various wildlife 

stipulations and requirements would significantly retard oil and gas development in the Pinedale Resource 

Area. Once again, the BLM’s cumulative impacts analysis on page 2-245 conflicts with the information 

expressed in Table 4-2 and Appendix A10. It appears the BLM improperly confused the cumulative 

number of conventional natural gas wells in the Resource Area, as expressed in the BLM’s cumulative 

impacts analysis in Appendix A19. See RMP DEIS, Appd. A19, pg. A19-17.

Response: The RMP analyzed four alternatives—the No Action (Alternative 1, the continuation of the 

1988 RMP), a less restrictive enhanced commodity option (Alternative 2), an enhanced surface resource 

protection scenario (Alternative 3), and a scenario melding Alternatives 1 through 3. To meet the 

enhanced surface resource objective, Alternative 3 is purposely restrictive to provide a range of 

alternatives as prescribed by NEPA and CEQ. The final EIS has been corrected, where appropriate, to 

reflect the correct well projection for federal wells.

Comment: The range of alternatives in the DEIS is arbitrarily limited and unduly constrains BLM’s 

management options. For example, Alternative 1 carries forward the current management actions; 

Alternative 2 attempts to show the effects of oil and gas operations with few additional restrictions; 

Alternative 3 focuses on preservation, the most restrictive management, while Alternative 4, the preferred 

alternative, represents an attempt to reconcile potential conflicts. Clearly, only Alternative 4 is viable as a 

preferred alternative. However, it provides BLM with constrained and, therefore, narrow management 

options. Moreover, in order to demonstrate an adequate range of alternatives, Alternative 4 relies upon 

management tools that are unsuitable to facilitate reasonable multiple use activities, such as grazing, oil 

and gas exploration and development and motorized recreation. 

We urge BLM to include in the Final EIS a revised preferred alternative that affords BLM with greater 

flexibility to more reasonably address the needs of all uses on public lands. The new preferred alternative 

would utilize a broader variety of management options available to manage oil and gas and other 

activities without the excessive limitations required in Alternative 4 and without the lack of management 

options identified in Alternative 2. For example, we recommend that BLM include a management area 

that would provide for moderately development areas in addition to intensively and minimally developed 

areas. This would provide a better balance than the “all or nothing” approach adopted by BLM in the 

DEIS. 

A revised preferred alternative could reduce the use of unnecessarily severe restrictive stipulations, 

including limiting seasonal and no surface occupancy to areas where they are actually justified. We 

recommend that a new preferred alternative be crafted from a blend of Alternatives 2 and 4. As such, the 

revised alternative would not require a supplemental EIS because it would draw upon the elements of the 

alternatives already analyzed in the DEIS. 

Page 2-2 NEPA “Drilling practices, well pad-size limitations, drilling materials and fluids, and 

reclamation requirements are determined on a site-specific basis at the Application for Permit to Drill 

(APD) or field development EIS stage” Comment: Activity plans can be tiered to the RMP. We disagree 

with BLM’s assumption that another EIS will be needed. Geographic Area Plans or other small scale 

NEPA analyses should be tiered to the existing NEPA analysis for the RMP to show that operations and 

impacts remain within the scope of the analysis. 

Page 2-2 Table 2-1 Public Comments and Their Treatment in the Draft EIS “Phased development 

strategies are included in Alternatives 3 and 4. The planning area would be divided into three or four 

areas (depending on alternative) for management of oil and gas leasing and development. Different levels 

Pinedale RMP A27-203 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

of development would be allowed within each area, which would allow for phased development of the 

planning area.

Response: BLM feels the draft EIS/RMP does portray a reasonable range of alternatives consistent with 

the legislative mandates for mineral development and multiple use. The Minimally Developed Areas is a 

designation for areas that would be available for oil and gas leasing and development with standard lease 

stipulations and timing limitation and controlled surface use restrictions where appropriate. It provides a 

level of management between the Intensively Developed designation and the Unavailable/Large Block 

NSO designations. Although the document refers to it as minimally developed it could just as easily be 

called moderately developed. The term “Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional 

Leasing Areas” in the final EIS. Alternative 4 is a composite developed from Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 

Alternative 4 is designed to provide balance between commodity production and surface resource 

protection. RMPs are not designed with the level of site specificity to adequately address the impacts that 

could occur through the implementation of a given project, whether the project is a timber sale, oil and 

gas field development, range improvement project, wildlife habitat project, etc. Consequently, projectlevel NEPA analysis will be required as the referenced statement implies. 

Comment: Even the most limited option, Alternative 3, calls for too large an energy footprint and 

disrespects communities as well as private and public lands. It is the least damaging of the several 

draconian choices presented, but it does not go far enough to reduce the size of the footprint of lands 

available for leasing and exploitation and, as stated earlier, creates an unnecessary and deliberate tension 

among private/public land interests. 

Response: BLM feels the draft EIS/RMP addresses a reasonable range of alternatives. It is not designed 

or intended to supersede decisions made in current and valid NEPA documents such as the Jonah Infill 

EIS. The vast majority of the wells projected in each alternative reflects development already approved 

for the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline.

Comment: Given the extent of the current and proposed gas development in southern Sublette, 

responsible Resource Management Plan should emphasize a marginal analysis approach to the proposed 

new drilling activity. It should also focus on adequate margins for error given the drastically incorrect 

assumptions and projections (i.e. noxious gas emission levels, wildlife herd reductions, transportation 

levels, etc.) that appear to be inherent in the BLM’s previous attempts at environmental impact planning 

and control. The Preferred Alternative (4) gives no consideration to these fundamental approaches to 

sound policy. In comparison to Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative 4 is predicted to generate a 

relatively modest (15%) marginal increase in estimated natural gas production while 1) putting at risk a 

disproportionate amount of acreage (34%), and 2) accepting a 23% marginal increase in noxious 

emissions.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to present a reasonable range of alternatives and make 

projections of the impacts associated with each of those alternatives. Accordingly, the draft EIS projects 

varying levels of impacts to air quality, wildlife, and socioeconomic values, as well as to other resource 

values. Alternative 4 provides a mid-range of impacts between the higher level of commodity production 

in Alternative 2 and the higher level of surface resource protection in Alternative 3. Again, it is important 

to remember that regardless of the alternative ultimately selected, approximately 65% of the federal 

lands/federal mineral estate in the planning area is currently leased under the 1988 RMP. The 

leaseholders/operators have valid and existing rights to develop and produce these existing leases. 

Comment: The overall minerals management approach under Alternative 3 is inappropriate because it 

unreasonably limits oil and gas development. As the BLM is aware, mineral exploration and production is 

identified as a principal or major use of federal lands under FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 17020), and federal 

A27-204 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

agencies are required to expedite projects which increase domestic energy production, Executive Orders 

13211, 13212, and 13302. Notably, under this alternative 711,920 acres would be unavailable for OMS-1\ 

leasing, 307,450 would be available only with NSO stipulations, and another 339,570 acres available only 

with stringent seasonal or controlled use stipulations. In particular, over 268,030 acres of land with 

moderate, high, or very high potential for oil and gas would be made unavailable for leasing; another 

237,590 acres with moderate, high, or very high potential for oil and gas development are available, but 

only with NSO restrictions. Such decisions eliminate almost the entire planning area from mineral 

development and must not be selected.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to address a reasonable range of alternatives. Alternative 3 is 

purposely designed to enhance protection of surface resource values, whereas Alternative 2 is purposely 

design to enhance commodity production. Collectively they form the outer limits of the four alternatives 

analyzed.

Comment: I do have some concern about some of the policy language in the Alternative RMP. I 

discourage you from placing site-specific restrictions on a non-site specific plan. The restrictions 

suggested in the alternatives would make it unattractive for the major energy companies to consider the 

development of these natural gas fields. I would suggest that you eliminate these restrictions especially 

those in alternative 3. 

Response: The alternatives and analysis provided in the draft EIS are appropriate for a land use plan-level 

document.

Comment: PAGE: 4-70, SECTION: 4.7.4, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Overall, the management 

actions proposed under this alternative would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative 1] 

(STRIKEOUT); however a substantial part of the planning area (174,410 acres) would still be withdrawn 

from [unavailable for] (STRIKEOUT) fluid mineral development (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). As established 

in the above discussions on Impacts Common to All Alternatives, Impacts under Alternative 1, and 

Impacts under Alternative 2, fluid mineral resources underlying lands withdrawn from [unavailable] 

(STRIKEOUT) to leasing and without remnant existing leases would be unrecoverable. Resources 

underlying areas withdrawn from [unavailable for] (STRIKEOUT)leasing but with remnant existing 

leases would require substantial mitigation or offsite development actions such as directional drilling (so 

long as this does not infringe upon lease rights), [and these areas would experience increased 

development costs.] (STRIKEOUT) Leased hydrocarbon resources located beyond the technical or 

economic reach of directional drilling would be considered inaccessible and therefore unrecoverable. 

EXPLANATION: Closing 15% of planning area to energy development is not similar to Alt. 1. See 

Comment Ch. 2- 9 regarding statutory withdrawal requirements and previous comments by local 

governments, April 2006. Where there is drainage, BLM can require drilling of an off-setting well only if 

economic. Increased development costs would not necessarily occur. Moreover, where the withdrawal 

affects private land, the drainage mitigation rules would not apply to non-lessees. BLM must quantify 

resources probably lost and this is not done in the FEIS.

Response: The referenced statement has been modified in the final EIS as follows: “A substantial part of 

the planning area (441,100 acres) would be unavailable for fluid mineral development (Tables 2-32 and 2-

33). The affects of other management actions would be similar to those described for Alternative 1.” 

Oil and gas leasing is a discretionary act under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. Withholding 

areas from leasing is not subject to the withdrawal requirement under FLPMA. The Mineral Leasing Act 

gives the Secretary of the Interior the discretionary authority to determine whether federal lands are or are 

not available to leasing. In decision 162 IBLA 339 (August 19, 2004), IBLA states: “The relationship of 

the statutory requirements in section 226 pertaining to lease issuance to the discretionary authority of the 

Pinedale RMP A27-205 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Secretary was considered in detail in Haley v. Seaton, 281 F.2d 620, 624-25 (D.C. Cir. 1960), which 

traced the origins of those provisions to earlier amendments to the Mineral Leasing Act and observed: It 

is significant that the phrase ‘may be leased by the Secretary of the Interior’ in § 17 of the original 

Mineral Leasing Act [now 30 U.S.C. § 226] was carried forward without change in the Amendment of 

1935 and the Amendment of 1946, indicating an intent to continue to give the Secretary of the Interior 

discretionary power, rather than a positive mandate to lease. Id. at 625. The court concluded that the 

provision containing requirements for the issuance of competitive or noncompetitive leases applies only 

to lands ‘to be leased,’ plainly implying that the Secretary of the Interior was to determine what lands 

were to be leased. Accordingly, BLM concludes that the acceptance or rejection of the applications to 

lease here involved was a matter resting within the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. Id.”

Until a drainage situation occurs, BLM does not have sufficient data to be able to reasonably project or 

predict where drainage would occur that may require the developing of offsetting federal wells or what 

the volume of the drainage could be. 

Comment: fundamental flaws in the BLM’s approach to Alternative 4 which prevent EnCana from fully 

supporting Alternative 4. EnCana suggests that certain elements of Alternatives 2and 4 could be blended 

to create an Alternative which does not exceed the regulatory authority of the BLM, but which also 

optimizes opportunities for oil and gas development while also providing appropriate environmental 

protection for all competing resources.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to address a reasonable range of alternatives. Alternative 4 is 

already a composite of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 and is intended to provide a reasonable balance between 

commodity production and surface resource protection.

Comment: Finally, we conclude that the draft PRMP as presented is not a balanced analysis of the pros 

and cons of a suitable set of alternatives. Rather it is an advocacy document favoring “mineral sprawl”. 

That fundamental objection notwithstanding, the best choice from our perspective would be a modified 

version of Alternative 3. We recommend increasing the “unavailable for leasing” area to include from 

Daniel north to the boundary of the planning region, including the entire Hoback Basin, and the 

permanent withdrawal of the “unavailable for leasing” areas shown on Map 2.3. 

Response: BLM analyzed an appropriate range of alternatives in the draft EIS. BLM does not have the 

authority to prohibit development of existing valid leases. The alternatives consider a number of areas that 

could be made unavailable for leasing. However, even in these areas, existing valid leaseholders would 

have the right to develop those leases while they remain in effect.

Comment: 1. Problems with Alternative 4: Crucial discussion and management actions are lacking 

through the document in terms of landscape management, analysis of potential impacts, monitoring and 

mitigation, maintaining management flexibility in control of lease stipulations, the granting of permit 

stipulations without a public comprehensive process, ensuring methods for reclamation costs, adequacy of 

bonding and funding reclamation, and leasing without sufficient data, to name a few. It also lacks in 

taking a more conservative approach to leasing that ensures adequate protective measures for fish, 

wildlife, water resources, and air quality. 

Response: The RMP does address management and impacts across the landscape of the planning area 

and does address cumulative impacts beyond the planning area where appropriate. Chapter 4 does address 

potential impacts. Bonding requirements are already established by various BLM regulations. It is not 

necessary to address them in the RMP. The RMP is not a funding appropriation document. Alternative 3 

does take a conservative approach to leasing.

A27-206 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Compliance with Laws, NEPA, Policy 

Comment: Page 1-14 Energy Policy Act of 2005/Categorical Exclusions (CX) “Bureau of Land 

Management Energy and Non-Energy Mineral Policy” “This statement sets forth BLM policy for the 

management of energy and non-energy mineral resources (mineral resources) on public lands. It reflects 

the provisions of five important acts of Congress relating to mineral resources: ..., and the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005.” Comment: Section 390 of the EP Act directs that certain types of oil and gas development 

do not require further analysis under NEPA. These statutory provisions apply to all Federal land 

management agencies. Accordingly, while on-site inspections of all proposed well and road locations are 

required, any needed consultations with FWS and others must also be held, and all appropriate mitigation 

and best management practices must be identified and reasonably applied; drilling does not need to be 

delayed for preparation of a NEPA document. BLM instruction memorandum 2005-247 provides 

guidance for implementing these exclusions. 

Page 1-15 “The Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages energy efficiency and conservation; promotes 

alternative and renewable energy sources; reduces dependence on foreign sources of energy; increases 

domestic production; modernizes the electrical grid; and encourages the expansion of nuclear energy.” 

Comment: Discussion of the categorical exclusions contained in the EP Act and how those provisions can 

be applied to subsequent oil and gas drilling and development is missing from the analysis and discussion 

in the RMP. In reviewing an Application for Permit to Drill (APD), Surface Use Plan of Operations 

(SUPO), or pipeline application involving a proposed activity that fits into one of the five categories, the 

appropriate CX is to be applied as it has been determined that no further NEPA analysis is required. 

Comment: BLM is continuing to process more applications each year. Continuing approvals at these high 

levels, while performing necessary monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation measures, 

requires BLM to make efficient use of the CX authorities and to change how it processes APDs in the 

intensively developed areas vs. minimally developed and restricted areas. Some possibilities are: 

• Allowing use of Categorical Exclusions for sundry notices and Applications for Permits to Drill 

on multiple-well pads. 

• Establishing monitoring as a priority to track land use plan and project implementation. A system 

for tracking and coordinating monitoring within and among agencies needs to be developed, 

along with improvements in coordination among agencies for data exchange and research.

Response: The use of the Categorical Exclusions under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is provided by 

statute under the Act and therefore does not require an RMP decision to implement. The Pinedale Field 

Office routinely processes authorizations under one of the five statutory Categorical Exclusions where 

appropriate. Likewise, establishing monitoring and tracking measures is already under BLM’s authority 

and in many cases has already been instituted. A RMP decision is not needed to establish monitoring or 

tracking systems. BLM will comply with all laws, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005, in 

determining whether a Categorical Exclusion is applicable in any particular instance. 

Comment: Item: Page 1-14, Section 1.5.2, Bureau of Land Management Energy and Non-Energy 

Mineral Policy “This statement sets forth BLM policy for the management of energy and non-energy 

mineral resources (mineral resources) on public lands. It reflects the provisions of five important acts of 

Congress relating to mineral resources: ..., and the Energy Policy Act of 2005.” Comment–Section 390 of 

the Act provides that certain types of oil and gas development do not require further analysis under 

NEPA. The statutory provisions apply to the BLM. Accordingly, while onsites of all proposed well and 

road locations are required, any needed consultations with FWS and others must be held, and all 

appropriate mitigation and best management practices must be applied, drilling does not need to be 

delayed for preparation of a NEPA document. BLM instruction memorandum 2005-247 provides 

Pinedale RMP A27-207 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

guidance for implementing these exclusions. The following five provisions of the Act need to be clearly 

incorporated into the final RMP EIS: 

• Individual surface disturbances of less than five (5) acres so long as the total surface disturbance 

on the lease is not greater than 150 acres and site-specific analysis in a document prepared 

pursuant to NEPA has been previously completed. 

• Drilling an oil and gas location or well pad at a site at which drilling has occurred within five (5) 

years prior to the date of spudding the well.” 

• Drilling an oil or gas well within a developed field for which an approved land use plan or any 

environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA analyzed drilling as a reasonably 

foreseeable activity, so long as such plan or document was approved within five (5) years prior to 

the date of spudding the well. 

• Placement of a pipeline in an approved right of-way corridor, as long as the corridor was 

approved within five (5) years prior to the date of placement of the pipeline.” 

• Maintenance of a minor activity, other than any construction or major renovation of a building or 

facility.

Response: The use of the Categorical Exclusions under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is provided by 

statute under the Act and therefore does not require an RMP decision to implement. The Pinedale Field 

Office routinely processes authorizations under one of the five statutory Categorical Exclusions where 

appropriate. BLM will comply with all laws, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005, in determining 

whether a Categorical Exclusion is applicable in any particular instance. 

Comment: 3. Is the record of Decision compliment with the Mineral Leasing Act? a. For NSO 

designations? b. For minimal development areas?

Response: The management recommendations under all four alternatives are compliant with the Mineral 

Leasing Act.

Comment: 4. Is the Record of Decision compliant with the Energy Policy Act?

Response: The management recommendations under all four alternatives are compliant with the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005.

Comment: I am deeply concerned about Alternative 3 to the Pinedale Resource Management Plan. I 

believe it is inappropriate to include seasonal drilling stipulations in the RMP; this causes fluctuations in 

the local economies, transient work forces and reduces the ability to extract resources while having a 

detrimental impact on wildlife. Furthermore I suggest that mandated directional drilling and clustered 

development should not be included in an RMP but should become part of the subsequent project level 

NEPA process. I am also concerned that language has been removed which would allow areas designated 

for minimal development to become developed if proven to be lucrative. I believe this maybe in violation 

of the mineral leasing act. I therefore suggest that you remove these components from the RMP.

Response: It is reasonable to apply stipulations to protect surface resources when permitting oil and gas 

wells or other developments. No alternative presented in the draft EIS would mandate directional drilling 

or clustered development. All alternatives presented in the draft EIS comply with the Mineral Leasing 

Act.

A27-208 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Comment: Although Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is clear that under certain conditions 

oil and gas development does not require further analysis under NEPA, there is no discussion in the 

DRMP of these provisions or how they will be applied. While onsites for proposed wells and roads are 

required as are consultations with USFWS where necessary, and appropriate mitigation measures and best 

management practices are necessary, drilling under specified conditions does not need to be delayed for 

preparation of a NEPA document. EM urges BLM to incorporate the language of Section 390 in the 

DRMP, including Instruction Memorandum 2005-247 which provides guidance for implementing these 

exclusions in the final RMP. The need for increasing reliance by BLM on categorical exclusions is 

evident in light of higher volumes of Applications for Permits to Drill received each year. EM urges BLM 

to strengthen its monitoring program to determine the effects of project approvals and land use plan 

implementation, and to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures. EM recognizes limitations exist 

on the use of categorical exclusions but due to the limited impacts involved, EM believes BLM should 

consider using categorical exclusions to approve sundry notices and Applications for Permits to Drill on 

multiple-well pads. 

Response: BLM must operate in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and directives. It is not 

necessary for an RMP to contain text from each applicable law, regulation, and directive. A description of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is included in Chapter 1 of the draft EIS and references to the Act are 

included in Chapter 2 of the draft EIS. 

Comment: BLM policy (IM 2005-069, Interim Offsite Compensatory Mitigation for Oil, Gas, 

Geothermal and Energy Rights-of-Way Authorizations by BLM) is clear that offsite mitigation may only 

be used on a voluntary basis but language on DRMP page 2-13 appears to imply that approval will be 

denied without it. EM urges BLM to revise the DRMP to be consistent with the IM. If offsite mitigation is 

considered, it is imperative that operators enter into such agreements on a voluntary basis and that BLM 

relies on current resource information to improve decision-making and facilitate public support. 

Response: BLM must operate in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and directives. This 

includes IM 2005-069 until it expires or is rescinded. The Compensatory (offsite) Mitigation section in 

Chapter 2 plainly states: “Compensatory, or offsite, mitigation proposed by oil and gas or other operators 

could be considered . . . (emphasis added.” 

Comment: The BLM’s authority under FLPMA is expressly made subject to valid existing rights, 43 

U.S.C. § 1701, an RMP prepared pursuant to FLPMA, after lease execution and after drilling and 

production has commenced, is likewise subject to existing rights. See Colorado Environmental Coal., et 

al., 165 IBLA 221, 228 (2005). The Pinedale RMP, when revised, cannot defeat or materially restrain 

APC’s existing right to develop its leases through conditions of approval or other means. See Colorado 

Environmental Coal., et al., 165 IBLA 221, 228 (2005) (citing Colorado Environmental Coal., 135 IBLA 

356, 360 (1996) aff'd, Colorado Environmental Coal. v. Bureau of Land Management, 932 F.Supp. 1247 

(D.Colo. 1996). Further, once the BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease without no surface 

occupancy stipulations, and in the absence of a nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against 

development, the BLM cannot completely deny development on the leasehold. See, e.g., National 

Wildlife Federation, et al., 150 IBLA 385, 403 (1999). Only Congress has the right to completely prohibit 

development once a lease has been issued. Western Colorado Congress, 130 IBLA 244, 248 (1994). The 

BLM must acknowledge that the revised Pinedale RMP, when adopted by the BLM, will not modify or 

impact APC’s lease rights.

Response: This is stated as such on page 2-8 of the draft EIS.

Comment: When the EPA recommends a reduction of the current levels of emissions from oil and gas 

development (which it recently has), this is not to be read and dismissed. This means adaptive 

Pinedale RMP A27-209 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

management which lowers these levels - PERIOD. It is NOT acceptable to read comments in any RMP 

Alternative like “clarifying changes could be made in the future to the wording of oil and gas lease 

stipulations....as long as the clarification does not place additional restrictions on the leaseholder.” BLM 

policy needs to start considering the rights of community members. wildlife and the environment and not 

the exclusive protection of “leaseholder rights”.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to place additional restrictions on oil and gas leases, even if 

such restrictions would reduce impacts of lease development. The alternatives analyzed attempt to 

provide balance on a planning-area scale between industrialized areas and undeveloped, open habitats for 

wildlife.

Comment: I therefore strongly oppose this Alternative and support instead Alternative 3 with the 

following revision included in its final form: • Reduce the annual number of wells drilled to stabilize air 

quality and wildlife populations, as well as allowing community infrastructure to adapt properly to 

growth.

Response: Both the President’s Energy Policy and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 direct the Secretary of 

the Interior, and subsequently BLM, to develop the energy resources under its jurisdiction in an efficient 

and environmentally sound manner. This RMP is consistent with this directive. The alternatives do 

address different levels of development. 

Comment: The Preferred Alternative is mot consistent with the mineral leasing act especially in the areas 

designated for “minimal development”.

Response: The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 states, “All lands subject to disposition under this chapter 

which are known or believed to contain oil or gas deposits MAY be leased by the Secretary (emphasis 

added).” It is within the Secretary’s authority to designate certain lands unavailable for leasing.

Comment: With this in mind I would like to register my comments on the RMP regarding compliance 

with the Federal Mineral Leasing Act. In compliance with the act, I support: authorizing the leasing of 

lands that are known or believed to contain oil or gas deposits. If valuable deposits of oil or gas have been 

discovered within the Pinedale BLM District, the company engaged in the prospecting process is entitled 

to a lease. Each alternative under consideration for adoption must be in compliance with the Mineral 

Leasing Act. 

Response: The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 states: “All lands subject to disposition under this chapter 

which are known or believed to contain oil or gas deposits may be leased by the Secretary (emphasis 

added).” It is within the Secretary’s authority to designate certain lands unavailable for leasing.

Comment: BLM should also directly implement/require that all leasees/operators comply withy 

Wyoming DEQ requirements (Wyo. DEQ was granted primacy by Federal EPA and thus acts as agents 

of/for Fed.EPA); therefore also honoring Wyo. law on Federal public lands.

Response: By virtue of the applicable state law, rule, and/or regulation, operators/leaseholders are 

required to adhere to those given laws, rules, and regulations or are subject to the built-in penalties. BLM 

does not have the authority to enforce state law, rule, or regulation.

Comment: Finally, Wyo. Split Estate surface laws should be implemented/required by BLM of their 

mineral leasees/operators, rather than current BLM practice to ignore such Wyo. law. Similarly, BLM 

should comply with Wyo. Game/Fish requirements and work together therewith/in-conjunction towards 

common conservation/mitigation measures. 

A27-210 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: This is beyond the jurisdiction and authority of this RMP.

Comment: PAGE: A3-4 SECTION: 2. RECOMMENDED CHANGE: NSO analysis will be preceded by 

documentation justifying the need to impose NSO, e.g. slope, erosive soils, geologic hazards. 

EXPLANATION: Insert EPCA analysis that this is the least restrictive constraint on development 

necessary to protect resources. IM 2005-234.

Response: The RMP is in conformance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (of 2000) (EPCA), 

and the least restrictive measure required to protect the resource values under this alternative is implied. 

Comment: 6) Protect the rights of surface owners where the federal government owns the mineral rights.

Response: BLM must operate within all applicable laws, regulations, and directives.

Comment: While Table 1-1 makes it clear that BLM’s jurisdiction is limited to Federal lands, it is not 

clear how it will coordinate with Wyoming Fish and Game Department, WOGCC, the WY State Lands 

Office and other entities including private landowners to assure land use and resource management 

objectives are consistent with land ownership. EM encourages inclusion of recent BLM publications, e.g., 

IM 2005-069, Interim Offsite Compensatory Mitigation for Oil, Gas, Geothermal and Energy Rights-ofWay Authorizations by BLM and the split estate manual, in the final RMP.

Response: BLM Wyoming has MOUs with various state agencies that detail coordination requirements. 

It is not necessary they be detailed in an RMP. Coordination with private landowners would be conducted 

on a case-by-case basis. BLM must operate in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and 

directives. This includes Instruction Memoranda that have not expired. It is not necessary to include all 

applicable guidance within the text of an RMP.

Comment: Page 2-143 Indefinite postponement of leasing is an unacceptable management approach and 

is inconsistent- with the provisions of BLM national energy policy (chapter 1, page 15) which states that 

public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal 

or other administrative actions are clearly justified in the national interest.

Response: The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 states: “All lands subject to disposition under this chapter 

which are known or believed to contain oil or gas deposits may be leased by the Secretary (emphasis 

added).” It is within the Secretary’s authority to designate certain lands unavailable for leasing.

Comment: The other thing I want you to consider is the communities surrounding your field office 

boundary. These communities are heavily reliant on the natural resources industry -- and part of your duty 

is to make sure your plans actually HELP those towns, not HARM them. Keep that in mind. Finally, I 

believe the best thing you can do before finalizing this plan is consult the Federal Mineral Leasing Act 

and the 2005 Energy Policy Act. I believe any and all of the answers you need can be found in those 

documents. 

Response: All alternatives presented in the draft EIS comply with the Mineral Leasing Act and the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Comment: I would like this opportunity to comment in regard to the Resource Management Plan 

compliance with the Federal Mineral Leasing Act. I understand that this Act authorizes for the lease of 

land which are known or believed to contain oil or gas deposits, as long as the company seeking the 

prospecting permit is able to establish this fact to the satisfaction of the Secretary. This is addressed in the 

language in the minimal development section of the Resource Management Plan. This section meets the 

Pinedale RMP A27-211 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

standards of the Mineral Leasing Act. I strongly believe the Resource Management Plan must continue to 

comply with the Federal Mineral Leasing Act because it ensures both the legality of the document and it 

will give a far greater degree of environmental protection.

Response: All alternatives presented in the draft EIS comply with the Mineral Leasing Act.

Comment: PAGE: 4.25, SECTION: 4.3.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE FOR ACCURACY 

& LEGALITY Mineral lease activities would cease as the area is withdrawn and if no discovery is made 

on the existing leases [Minerals leasing would be unavailable ] (STRIKEOUT) within the Wind River 

Front MA (201,240 acres). EXPLANATION: As explained infra, BLM must use §204 to close the area to 

mineral leasing. Because there are some leases and possible mineral development on private land, EIS 

cannot say unequivocally that land is unavailable and there will be no development.

Response: BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-119, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Provide opportunities for mineral extraction 

and energy exploration and development to provide resources to meet national and local needs while 

providing appropriate level of environmental protection for all competing resources. EXPLANATION: 

Revise objective to conform to FLPMA and Mining and Minerals Policy Act

Response: BLM feels the objective does comport with the requirements of FLPMA and the Mining and 

Minerals Policy Act.

Comment: PAGE: 2-7 SECTION: 2.3.4 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD: RMP decisions to close 

public lands to mineral leasing or to mining under the 1872 Mining Laws will be recommended for 

withdrawal to the Assistant Secretary for withdrawals in accordance with Section 204 of FLPMA, DM 

613 and 43 C.F.R. Subpart 2310. EXPLANATION: Withdrawal section needs to conform to law. The use 

of §202 land use decisions rather than §204 of FLPMA contradicts the plain language of the statute and 

IBLA decisions. The Secretary’s discretion under the Mineral Leasing Act (“MLA”) to refuse to issue oil 

and gas leases is exercised “both on an ad hoc basis, in response to specific lease offers, or more formally 

through his general authority to withdraw land from mineral leasing.” Clayton W. Williams, Exxon Corp., 

103 IBLA 192, 206 (1988) (citing Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 499 F. Supp. 383 (D. 

Wyo. 1980) and Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Hodel, 668 F. Supp. 1466 (D. Wyo. 1987)). 

FLPMA requires the withdrawal to consider 12 separate factors, not all of which are addressed in the 

FEIS. BLM cannot claim that a land use plan closure is ad hoc since it is areawide, nor does the FEIS 

meet FLPMA criteria, such as notations in the BLM plat books. In short, BLM efforts to circumvent 

FLPMA’s withdrawal procedures contradict the very reasons that Congress revoked all prior withdrawal 

authority and replaced it with a single section. 

Response: BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP.

Comment: There seems to be a complete disconnect between national standards and the local mountain 

environment within which the existing and proposed additional mineral sprawl will occur. Use of models 

which do not take local conditions into account, and which, in addition, are not based on enough actual 

monitoring data is a basically flawed approach. 

Response: The models used are scientifically accepted and designed to project the impacts to and from 

resource development in the planning area. 

Comment: The DEIS states “management actions on existing leases within the unavailable areas would 

be designed to protect important habitats by excluding surface occupancy and/or disturbance to the extent 

A27-212 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

this restriction does not violate the leaseholder’s rights.” The Service suggests that the Bureau provide an 

entire description of “leaseholder’s rights” and clarify what would or would not be allowed to occur in 

this situation.

Response: The leaseholder’s rights are found at 43 CFR 3101.1-2. It is not necessary for the RMP to 

textually reiterate all applicable sections of all governing statutes and regulations. Federal regulations at 

43 CFR 3101.1-2 state: “A lessee shall have the right to use so much of the leased lands as is necessary to 

explore for, drill for, mine, extract, remove, and dispose of all the leased resource in a leasehold . . .” It 

also goes on to state that exploring for, drilling for, mining, extracting, removing, and disposing of all the 

leased resource in a leasehold is subject to: “Stipulations attached to the lease: restrictions deriving from 

specific nondiscretionary statutes; and such reasonable measures as may be required by the authorized 

officer to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the lease 

stipulations at the time operations are proposed. To the extent consistent with lease rights granted, such 

reasonable measures may include, but are not limited to, modification to siting or design of facilities, of 

time operations, and specification of interim and final reclamation measures.” Specific development 

limitations and their consistency with lease rights would be determined through project-level or sitespecific NEPA analysis.

Comment: Although the BLM apparently considered the inventory data from the original Energy Policy 

Conservation Action (“EPCA”) study, as required by BLM Instruction Memorandum 2003-233 and 2003-

204 (Aug. 4, 2003), the BLM should also carefully review the results and analysis contained in the 

Scientific Inventory of Onshore Federal Land’s Oil and Gas Resources and the Extent and Nature of 

Restrictions or Impediments to Their Development (2006) (EPCA II) prepared in compliance with § 604 

of the Energy Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-469, and § 364 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 

109-58. The EPCA II study demonstrates the significant negative impacts stipulations have upon oil and 

gas leasing and development. The EPCA II study demonstrates that only 15% of lands containing natural 

gas resources within the entire Green River Basin are available with Standard Lease Terms and that 76% 

of the lands are encompassed with restrictions to development. The EPCA II Study further determined 

that 37% of the percent of the natural gas underlying federal lands in the Green River Basin is 

inaccessible between 3 and 6 months each year, and up 9% of the natural gas in the area is inaccessible a 

full 9 months of the year. See EPCA II, pgs. 122 - 125. The BLM should carefully consider the impacts 

more restrictive stipulations will have upon oil and gas development in the Pinedale Resource Area and, 

as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, ensure that stipulations imposed are only as restrictive as 

necessary. See Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 363(b)(3), 119 Stat. 594, 723 (2005). 

Response: The plan does take energy production into consideration, but it also takes the other resource 

values within the planning area into account, as required by numerous laws and regulations. Alternative 2 

purposely addresses enhanced commodity production and relaxed seasonal and surface disturbance 

restrictions, whereas Alternative 3 purposely addresses enhanced surface resource protection. This was 

done to meet the NEPA requirement to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives.

Existing Leases 

Comment: The BLM properly recognizes that existing oil and gas leases within the Pinedale planning 

area must be honored. Only Congress has the right to completely prohibit development once a lease has 

been issued. Western Colorado. Congress, 130 IBLA 244, 248 (1994). In the Final EIS’ the BLM should 

discuss the fact that an oil and gas is a contract between the fed era (government and the lessee, and that 

the lessees has certain rights thereunder. See Mobil Oil Exploration 8, Producing Southeast Inc. v. United 

States, 530 U.S. 604, 620 (2000). 

The BLM also appropriately recognizes that “[s]urface use and timing restrictions resulting from this 

RMP cannot be applied to existing leases.” See RMP DEIS, pg. 2-8. However, BLM attempts to limit this 

Pinedale RMP A27-213 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

statement by suggesting it could impose conditions of approval (“COAs”) to “mitigate potential impacts 

from oil and gas operations.” The BLM cannot use site-specific COAs as a means to. enforce defacto 

stipulations on existing leases in contravention of a lessee’s valid existing rights. Congress made it clear 

when it enacted FLPMA that nothing therein, or in the land use plans developed thereunder, was intended 

to terminate, modify, or alter any valid or existing property rights. See 43 U.S.C. § 170.1 (2006). BLM 

Instruction Memorandum 92-67 states that “[t]he lease contract conveys certain rights which must be 

honored through its term, regardless of the age of the lease, a change in surface management conditions, 

or the availability of new data or information. The contract was validly entered based upon the 

environmental standards and information current at the time of the lease issuance.” In the Final EIS, the 

BLM should make it absolutely clear that it intends to honor valid and existing lease rights.

Response: This discussion is found on page 2-8 of the draft EIS.

Comment: We are supposed to be smart enough to extract the resources without wrecking the land. With 

this in mind, please reconsider your proposal to allow any drilling on the Hoback Rim, or the Wyoming 

Range. Looking into the future, you should not allow new wells until old wells are exhausted and 

reclaimed. This would cap the environmental impact on Sublette County and its magnificent herds of 

wildlife and flocks of grouse that represent the common wealth of Wyoming, indeed our renewable stock 

in trade that will endure far longer than the minerals. 

Response: The current drilling proposal in the Hoback Rim area is on lands administered by the USFS 

and is, therefore, not within the area encompassed by this RMP. There are lands and mineral estates 

within the planning area in the Hoback Rim area and foothills of the Wyoming Range that are within the 

jurisdiction of this plan. Under Alternative 3, these lands would either be unavailable for new oil and gas 

leasing or new leases would be encumbered by a restriction prohibiting surface occupancy. Some of these 

lands are currently leased and the leaseholder(s) have a legal and valid right under the Mineral Leasing 

Act to explore, develop, and produce the oil and gas resources contained in those leases. BLM does not 

have the authority to prohibit development of existing leases. 

Comment: Intensive development in Alternative 4 nibbles into critical habitat of all major species in the 

area in virtually all geographic areas. Why is it necessary in Alternative 4 to take bits of critical habitat for 

intensive development? The amount of land made available by these encroachments increases 

developable land by only a small amount. Surely adjustments can be made to remove these habitat 

encroachments from intensive development without discounting half of the area, as is done in Alternative 

3. 

Response: All the alternatives must recognize existing oil and gas leases. BLM does not have the 

authority to prohibit development of existing valid leases.

Comment: The NSO near Daniel in Alternative 4 doesn’t address existing leases in what GASCO call 

“the Daniel anticline.” What will be done with producing leases in the area?

Response: Under the Mineral Leasing Act, a leaseholder has a legal and valid right to explore for, 

develop, and produce the oil and gas resources contained within that lease. BLM does not have the 

authority to prohibit development of existing valid leases.

Comment: 5. This change in the RMP may open the door to further expansion into a major gas field 

development. The energy developers may later want to consider five acre well spacing, as in the Jonah 

Field. Even the “one third of 8,383 wells”, as the draft is suggesting outside of Jonah and the Pinedale 

Anticline, will be too much. Will this possibility be considered in the RMP / EIS? 

A27-214 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: The Preferred Alternative would not “open the door to further expansion” but would make the 

planning area less available for gas field development through the establishment of areas not available for 

leasing and areas available only with No Surface Occupancy stipulations. BLM does not have the 

authority to prohibit oil and gas development on existing valid leases.

Comment: We fully support BLM’s stated intent to recognize valid existing lease rights. However, we 

are concerned that the statements made throughout the DEIS that BLM is simply giving the issue lip 

service. It has been the experience of operators in the Pinedale Field Office that BLM often applies COAs 

to operations that far exceed the terms of the lease. Therefore, it is critical for the agency to clarify that it 

does not have the discretion to modify proposed actions on existing, unstipulated leases voluntary 

agreement from the lease holder is obtained. According to BLM’s 1601 Planning Manual, such 

modifications may include the choice of alternatives being considered during land use plan development 

and implementation and may include appropriate stipulations, relocations, redesigns, or delay of proposed 

actions. Clearly, BLM has ignored its own direction in selecting Alternative 4 as its Preferred Alternative. 

We strongly recommend that BLM reconsider its choice of preferred alternative based upon these 

comments. 

Additionally, BLM policy as embodied in IM 92-67 instructs that mitigation required to prevent 

unnecessary and undue degradation under FLPMA must be consistent with existing lease terms. 

However, the standard for determining what constitutes unnecessary and undue degradation must also 

acknowledge that there is also “necessary and due degradation.” Specifically, it is stated that if mitigation 

“would render a proposed operation uneconomic or technically infeasible so that a prudent operator 

would not proceed, such degradation may also be considered 

Response: Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-2 state: “A lessee shall have the right to use so much of 

the leased lands as is necessary to explore for, drill for, mine, extract, remove, and dispose of all the 

leased resource in a leasehold subject to: Stipulations attached to the lease; restrictions deriving from 

specific nondiscretionary statutes; and such reasonable measures as may be required by the authorized 

officer to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses, or users not addressed in the lease 

stipulations at the time operations are proposed. To the extent consistent with lease rights granted, such 

reasonable measures may include, but are not limited to, modification to siting or design of facilities, 

timing of operations, and specification of interim and final reclamation measures.” 

Chapter 1 of the draft EIS emphatically states that “[e]xisting oil and gas or other mineral rights would be 

honored.” Alternative 4 is consistent with these requirements. The RMP is designed to address a 

reasonable range of alternatives. Additional alternatives are not deemed necessary.

Comment: Page 2-143 While the above discussion clarifies that the management zones are intended to 

protect wildlife from oil and gas and specific mitigation guidelines and operating standards for each 

resource are presented in Appendix 3 and apply to each of the management areas. Overall, it is not clear 

how oil and gas development on existing leases will differ for these management areas. It is also unclear 

how operations on future leases will differ between the intensively and minimally developed areas.

Response: Existing leases, regardless of where they are, provide the leaseholder/operator with the right to 

develop and produce the lease. All existing leases would be managed in accordance with 43 CFR 3101.1-

2.

Comment: Another key problem in this DEIS is the lack of attention paid to the extent of land already 

leased. More leasing isn’t necessarily the only the key issue in the plan region. Instead, a buy-back and 

trade out of existing leases in the Upper Bridger-Teton, on BLM, Forest Service, and private lands to 

make areas permanently unavailable for mineral development, is another key issue. It is not embodied in 

Pinedale RMP A27-215 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

any of the Alternatives; in fact, the possibility is not even recognized as an option anywhere in the 

document. 

Response: Approximately 61% of the BLM-administered mineral estate in the planning area is currently 

leased for oil and gas development. It is outside the authority of BLM to stipulate actions on oil and gas 

leases on lands not administered by BLM. The possibility of exchanging non-producing leases with 

willing leaseholders is presented in Alternative 3 and has been added to Alternative 4 in the final EIS. 

Comment: We want the moratorium on leasing that was put in place in the 2,000 ROD for the Pinedale 

Anticline EIS as illustrated on Map 2.1 and incorporated into Map 2.3 to include the addition of T34N, 

T35N and surrounding lands, the Upper Hoback, the Green River Valley, the Wyoming Range and the 

Winds to be permanently withdrawn. This would concentrate development largely to areas where it is 

already occurring and planned. This is our “Alternative 3 modified.”

Response: It is not within the authority of BLM to make leasing decisions on USFS-administered lands 

in the Wind River and Wyoming ranges. BLM must honor valid existing leases. The areas available for 

oil and gas leasing have been revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: The existing, leased areas are substantial and it is irresponsible to lease land well into the 

future when the infill alone will take years to develop. The BLM is proposing to sacrifice the natural 

resources of Sublette County for energy exploitation without a complete inventory of resources affected 

in specific areas such as the Rim, Upper Green River areas

Response: As directed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Federal Land Management and Policy 

Act of 1976, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, oil and gas development is one of the resource values 

that BLM is mandated to manage for public benefit. The alternatives in this RMP make varying 

allocations of lands available for oil and gas leasing and development consistent with these mandates. 

Comment: 2) Delay the environmental analysis of new gas projects live so the Piney Gas/cbm project 

until the RMP is complete. This is important so that the BLM can take the time to complete an adequate 

environmental review process.

Response: Valid leases issued under the current RMP must be honored. BLM does not have the authority 

to prohibit development of valid existing leases.

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-32: First paragraph “In addition, areas that are closed to mineral 

leasing, that have NSO stipulations, or that are otherwise identified as unsuitable for surface disturbance 

or occupancy, would be managed as ROW avoidance or exclusion areas.” Fourth paragraph: “Any ROWs 

proposed in VRM Class II areas would be subject to intensive mitigation and, in some cases, could be 

precluded.” Recommendations: Delete statements, as they hinder access to existing rights and leaseholds.

Response: Chapter 2, page 2-8, of the draft EIS emphatically states that “[e]xisting oil and gas or other 

mineral rights would be honored.” It further states that COAs could be applied at the APD or Sundry 

Notice stage, providing the leaseholder right to develop the lease remains intact. The following text is 

being added to the final EIS: “If an Operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer 

that a COA could not be technically or economically implemented, then the COA would not be applied or 

if it were already applied it would be rescinded.”

Comment: Last, lands in Unavailable Areas would be subject to the following management. These lands 

would be unavailable for new leasing, including a decision to not re-offer leases that expire. 2-49, 2-122. 

Existing leases could be developed pursuant to the terms of the lease, including allowance for exploration 

A27-216 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

and development following discovery. Id. Again, it appears-but is not certain; this should be clarified-that 

existing leases might be subject to somewhat intensive management so as to protect the environment.

Response: The holders of an existing federal oil and gas lease have a valid legal right to develop and 

produce that lease. BLM can impose reasonable restrictions on post-lease actions, such as applications for 

permit to drill (APDs) under 43 CFR 31010.1-2. The following text change has been made in the final 

EIS: “Oil and gas operators would have the right to explore, develop, and produce existing leases. As 

prescribed in 43 CFR 3101.1-2, post-lease actions, such as APDs and Sundry Notices, could be subject to 

reasonable restrictions as determination necessary by the Authorized Officer.” 

Comment: Sitting as something like an 800 pound gorilla in the background of any alternative the BLM 

may adopt as the RMP is the question of how existing leases will be managed. Approximately 70 percent 

of the Pinedale Field Office has already been leased. Map 1-3. Thus, regardless of what provisions may 

apply to future leasing, such as designating an area unavailable for future leasing or allowing leasing only 

with NSO stipulations, the management of existing leases may well be the most significant question any 

alternative must address, and the RMP DEIS is insufficient in this regard. To the extent that the BLM 

addresses this issue, and it seems to do so only here and there throughout the RMP DEIS rather than in a 

carefully structured, cohesive (and easily located) fashion, it appears that the BLM misapprehends its 

legal rights and indeed obligations regarding areas of the Pinedale Field Office that have already been 

leased. The BLM appears to take the position that it has very limited rights to control the pace, location, 

and numerous other environmentally significant aspects of oil and gas development if an area has been 

leased. This is an incorrect view of BLM’s rights and indeed its obligations under the law and to the 

American public, and this misapprehension of the BLM’s legal rights and obligations relative to areas 

already leased for oil and gas development should be corrected in the final EIS and most importantly in 

the RMP.

Response: Holders of existing oil and gas leases have a valid legal right to explore, develop, and produce 

the lease. As provided in 43 CFR 3101.1-2, BLM does have the authority to impose “reasonable 

restrictions” to post-lease actions where the lease is not encumbered with stipulations. The draft EIS does 

provide for opportunities for BLM to mitigate impacts on existing leases, please refer to action items b 

and c under Objectives 2 and 3 on pages 2-55, 2-82, 2-83, and 2-120, 2-121 of the draft EIS. 

Comment: Map 1-3 displays mineral ownership and federal leases. Most of the planning area is already 

leased; thus allocating areas available and unavailable for leasing such as in Map 2-3, Alternative 3, is 

very strange. Also, there is some confusion about changes in the designation of lands unavailable for 

leasing. If lands were to be truly made unavailable, or withheld, then leases would have to be bought back 

and the area removed from lands available for leasing in the future. We do not see that discussion in the 

DEIS. This needs to be corrected in the next Draft. 

Response: BLM does not have the authority to buy back leases. The discussion for unavailable for 

leasing emphatically states that these areas may contain existing leases and that the holders of those leases 

have a legal right to develop and produce. The designation would retain currently unleased federal 

land/minerals in an unleased status and would prevent expired leases from being re-leased. 

Comment: The proposed restriction on new access routes within big game crucial winter range, see RMP 

DEIS, pgs. 2-146 - 148, may violate existing lease rights, and the rights granted operators of approved oil 

and gas units. The BLM should not unreasonably restrict access to federal oil and gas leases.

Response: As previously stated, valid existing rights would be honored.

Pinedale RMP A27-217 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: The BLM has not adequately explained or justified the right-of-way (“ROW”) avoidance area 

on the far western portion of the Pinedale Resource Area. EOG owns numerous oil and gas leases in the 

area and its ability to develop those leases could be significantly impacted if the BLM inappropriately 

limits EOG’s ability to access said leases. The BLM must be willing to work with oil and gas lessees and 

operators to design access routes to proposed oil and gas development projects. Further, the creation of 

the ROW exclusion and avoidance areas does not appear to reflect or acknowledge EOG’s valid and 

existing lease rights or its rights as the operator of units such as the Green River Bend Unit, McDonald 

Draw Unit, Chimney Butte Deep Unit, Tip Top Shallow Unit, and the North La Barge Shallow Unit.2 

While the issuance of the oil and gas leases does not guarantee access to the leasehold, a federal lessee is 

entitled to use such part of the surface as may be necessary to produce the leased substance. 43 C.F.R. § 

3101.1-2 (2006). With respect to approved units, the Interior Board of Land Appeals has noted that 

“[w]hen a federal unit has been approved and the unitized area is producing, rights-of-way are generally 

not required for production facilities and access roads within the unit area.” Southern Utah Wilderness 

Society, et al., 127 IBLA 331, 372 (1993). The BLM must recognize the lessee’s right to use the lands 

included within their leasehold or units in order to develop the oil and gas resources. Obviously, if lessees 

are not allowed access to their lease parcels, or are prohibited from installing pipelines necessary to 

transport the produced resource, they are deprived of all economic benefit of the lease. In such situations 

the lessee, the State of Wyoming, and the federal government will be deprived of the economic benefit of 

potential oil and gas development. 

Response: Table 2-27 of the draft EIS depicts the areas subject to ROW avoidance and exclusion and the 

resource value being protected for each alternative. The glossary at page G-3 of the draft EIS provides the 

following description of avoidance areas: “Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way and 

Section 302 permits, leases, and easements would be strongly discouraged. Authorizations made in 

avoidance areas would have to be compatible with the purpose for which the area was designated and not 

be otherwise feasible on lands outside the avoidance area.” Chapter 2, at page 2-8 of the draft EIS, states: 

“Existing oil and gas or other mineral lease rights would be honored.” This also applies to unit operations.

Comment: As noted above, the provisions applicable to the various area designations in the various 

alternatives (Intensely Developed Field, Large Block NSO Area, Unavailable Area, and Minimally 

Developed Area) are clear that existing leases could be developed. Perhaps more significant is language 

like this that appears here and there throughout the RMP DEIS: “It is important to recognize that the 

authorized officer has limited authority to modify the site location and design of facilities, control of the 

rate of development and timing of activities, or require other mitigation under sections 2 and 6 of the 

[standard lease terms] (BLM form 3100-11) and 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 3101.1-2.” A7-

1. 

With respect to this last requirement it is probably important to emphasize to BLM that FLPMA’s 

mandate to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation imposes dual requirements on the BLM, it must 

prevent both unnecessary degradation as well as undue degradation. Mineral Policy Center v. Norton, 292 

F.Supp.2d 30, 42 (D.D.C. 2003). We would also note that this decision stands as the final word as to what 

the unnecessary or undue degradation clause means the Department of the Interior did not appeal this 

decision, and thus it is the final word as to the Department’s responsibilities and has been accepted by the 

Department. Addressing this dual requirement, the court made plain that “Congress’s intent was clear: 

Interior is to prevent, not only unnecessary degradation, but also degradation that, while necessary to 

mining, is undue or excessive.” Id. That is, while unnecessary degradation may only prevent activities 

that are not generally recognized or used to pursue mining operations, the undue degradation prohibition 

establishes a further requirement to prevent activities that would unduly harm or degrade the public land. 

As stated by the court, “FLPMA, by its plain terms, vests the Secretary of the Interior with the authorityand indeed the obligation-to disapprove of an otherwise permissible mining operation because the 

operation, though necessary for mining, would unduly harm or degrade the public land.” Id. Despite this 

A27-218 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

clearly established law, the BLM, through its Director, has persisted in misstatements of the governing 

legal standard, and this must be corrected. See 1-15 (Policy Statement from BLM Director Kathleen 

Clarke stating that mineral use authorizations will be made in a manner “to prevent unnecessary and 

undue degradation.” (emphasis added)). The BLM’s attempts to read the plain language of FLPMA in the 

conjunctive rather than the disjunctive were firmly rejected by the Mineral Policy Center court. It is 

impossible for the BLM to fully recognize let alone exert its retained rights when it persists in stating its 

legal obligations in an impermissibly constrained manner. FLPMA, like NEPA, provides the BLM with 

authority, and indeed an obligation, to protect the natural environment even in areas that have already 

been leased. 

Clearly the BLM has retained very substantial rights under the standard lease, and under those retained 

rights the BLM has more than adequate authority to ensure that it fully complies with the laws and 

policies noted above by asserting these retained rights and the need to adhere to legal obligations when 

development is proposed on a lease. More specifically, these retained rights provide the BLM with more 

than sufficient authority to protect Large Block NSO and Unavailable Areas even though the area has 

been leased, so as to achieve the explicit management direction for these areas stated in the RMP.

Response: Holders of existing oil and gas leases have a valid legal right to explore, develop, and produce 

the lease. As provided in 43 CFR 3101.1-2, BLM does have the authority to impose “reasonable 

restrictions” to post-lease actions where the lease is not encumbered with stipulations. The draft EIS does 

provide for opportunities for BLM to mitigate impacts on existing leases, please refer to action items b 

and c under Objectives 2 and 3 on pages 2-55, 2-82, 2-83, and 2-120, 2-121 of the draft EIS. 

Comment: The BLM has specifically adopted and promulgated policies and directives regarding the 

contractual rights granted in an oil and gas lease. BLM Instruction Memorandum 92-67 states that “[t]he 

lease contract conveys certain rights which must be honored through its term, regardless of the age of the 

lease, a change in surface management conditions, or the availability of new data or information. The 

contract was validly entered based upon the environmental standards and information current at the time 

of the lease issuance.” As noted in the BLM’s policies, the lease constitutes a contract between the federal 

government and the lessee which cannot be unilaterally altered or modified by the BLM. In the Final EIS, 

the BLM should make it absolutely clear that it intends to honor valid and existing lease rights. 

Response: Chapter 2 at page 2-8 in the draft EIS, emphatically states that “[e]xisting oil and gas or other 

mineral lease rights would be honored.”

Comment: The BLM states that “The pace and timing of mineral development activities is dependent on 

a variety of factors outside the management decisions of BLM (p. 4-109).” This is not the case. The 

agency can certainly control the pace by implementing phased development (requiring that the initial 

areas of drilling and production activities be completely reclaimed before development begins in other 

areas) or phased leasing (where BLM refrains from leasing the entire planning area at once). These 

policies are certainly within BLM’s power to implement and should be considered for the Pinedale RMP.

Response: BLM cannot deny holders of existing leases access to develop their leaseholds. The referenced 

statement is correct in that the overall development pace is certainly influenced by the factors in the 

sentences following the statement. The RMP does provide for timing restrictions in certain crucial 

wildlife habitats, and all four alternatives establish areas that would be unavailable for leasing.

Comment: 2) Delay the environmental analysis of new gas projects, such as the South Piney Gas/CBM 

Project until the RMP is complete. This is essential since the current RMP fails to evaluate the impacts of 

CBM and because, without an updated RMP, the BLM cannot properly complete an impacts analysis or 

adopt mitigation measures;

Pinedale RMP A27-219 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Response: Valid leases issued under the current RMP must be honored. BLM does not have the authority 

to prohibit development of valid existing leases.

Comment: 3. That further development of the gas fields await the completion and adequate 

environmental review of the Pinedale Resource Management Plan, BLM. 

Response: It is BLM policy that actions be conducted under an existing land use plan until a superseding 

plan is approved. Current development in the oil and gas fields within the planning area is being 

conducted in accordance with the existing RMP approved in 1988 as well as under the decisions set forth 

in approved valid NEPA environmental documents such as the Jonah Infill and Pinedale Anticline EISs. 

Valid leases issued under the current RMP must be honored. BLM does not have the authority to prohibit 

development of valid existing leases. 

Comment: We ask the BLM to recommend to Congress that lands we describe as Alternate 3 modified, 

be withdrawn. Such an approach would prevent “mineral sprawl” into now pristine areas, and protect 

communities, private and public lands vital to the future of the area. Where leases have already been sold, 

the opportunity for public buy back or trade out should be implemented, as Senator Thomas outlined in 

his proposed bill to protect the Wyoming Range. Where leases have expired these lands should not be 

leased again, but rather covered by a permanent withdrawal to secure the area from energy exploitation 

and industrialization.

Response: Mineral withdrawal would affect hard rock minerals in the area, but would not prohibit leasing 

for oil and gas development. A large-scale lease buyback or trade program with many landowners and 

management agencies is properly addressed by the U.S. Congress, not BLM.

Pace of Drilling/Leasing 

Comment: Please: * Set a slower, more reasonable pace for new gas development; 

Response: Development rates and infrastructure scenarios are project-level issues that can be addressed 

through project-level EISs. 

Comment: While drilling for natural gas may be considered as a legitimate use of the public lands, I 

believe that this activity must be restricted to the least environmentally sensitive areas, regardless of the 

concentration of gas. The scope of the drilling must also be reduced.

Response: The RMP, through the alternatives developed, tries to balance resources by concentrating 

development in areas with known high volume natural gas and/or oil reserves and prohibiting or 

restricting development is other portions of the planning area. Development rates (scope of drilling) and 

infrastructure scenarios are project-level issues that are addressed through project-level EISs. 

Comment: As owners of over 250 acres of land that fronts on the Green River about 8 miles north of 

Cora, we are appalled at the recommendation to open this and other areas along the New Fork & Hoback 

Rim for oil and gas leasing. 

We maintain this land, and will continue to do so, as open grazing pastures. We have no intent to 

subdivide or develop it and want to protect it with conservation easements. However such easements offer 

little environmental protection when there is so much surrounding BLM land that can impact those of us 

who care enough to do the right thing. Please do NOT lease BLM land for oil and gas in this critical area. 

Make the land UNAVAILABLE for LEASING! 

A27-220 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: With the exception of a temporary moratorium on leasing enacted in 2000, these areas have 

been available for oil and gas leasing since passage of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. The areas 

unavailable for leasing have been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: I have been watching the RMP over the past few years and have finally decided to comment. I 

haven’t up to this point because I understand that our nation, our state, our towns and our homes all need 

natural gas. It seemed to me like a balance could be struck between those needs and the other resources 

our public lands provide. However, the more I learn about the BLM’s plans for the future of Sublette 

County, I am worried that this balance may be lost. There are some places where drilling, at this point, 

makes sense--the Jonah and the Mesa, for instance, have been heavily impacted already. But the Upper 

Green, the Upper New Fork, and the Rim are areas where it does NOT make sense to drill. The resources 

that will be lost--wildlife, scenery, habitat, history--are world class and deserve protection. Sublette 

County has given, and will continue to give, a lot towards our nation’s energy needs...but are we really 

going to give up these treasures? Please, don’t let these areas be leased. They are just too important. I can 

only imagine the intense pressure you and your agency are under, but I hope you will still be able to hear 

the individual voices out there who care about the future of Sublette County...please, please, don’t lease 

the Upper Green, Upper New Fork, and Rim.

Response: The areas available and unavailable for leasing have been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: I realize that there is a need for energy. The United States needs to diminish its dependence 

on foreign oil but destroying our environment does not justify the means. Proponents of further oil and 

gas exploration and development will point to the revenues that the industry has pumped into the local 

economy. However, I beg the question: At what point does the end not justify the means. When the 

mineral reserves that lie under our county are depleted, the vast majority of these companies and their 

employees will pack up and move to another greener pasture to drill through. I appreciate the efforts of 

some companies to minimize the environmental impacts of their operations. 

Response: Wells have been developed and produced in the Big Piney-La Barge area since the 1920s. 

New gas wells with a 30+ year life expectancy are still being drilled in this area. Drilling is anticipated in 

the Jonah Field for the next 5 to 10 years and for 15 to 20 years on the Pinedale Anticline. Wells in the 

Jonah Field and on the Pinedale Anticline have a life expectancy of 40+ years.

Comment: Alternative 4 of the Resource Plan would allow leasing to continue on at least 70 percent, or 

850,000 acres, of the resource area, and it would relax wildlife protections as well as result in a significant 

increase in air pollution. Expanding drilling in this region would also scar the landscape with roads, 

pipelines and transmission lines, harm crucial wildlife habitat, and could pollute the fisheries of the Green 

and New Fork rivers. Such consequences are not acceptable in a good resource management plan.

Response: The vast majority of the lands that would be available for leasing under objectives 1 and 2 in 

Alternative 4 of the draft EIS are currently leased. Under this Alternative they would continue to be 

available. Please note that Alternative 4 in the final EIS increases the amount of land unavailable for 

leasing from 172,500 acres to 441,100 acres, and the acreage constrained by No Surface Occupancy from 

21,485 to 198,370 acres. 

Comment: Energy development has become the predominate use of public lands wherever oil and gas 

resources exist and BLM policies facilitate development to the near exclusion of other priorities,

Response: Changing BLM policy is beyond the authority and scope of this RMP. 

Comment: The following are things that I would like to see in the RMP: 

Pinedale RMP A27-221 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

• No new major energy fields until the development in existing fields is complete

Response: Approximately 62% of the planning area is currently leased for oil and gas development. The 

holders of these leases have valid legal rights to develop and produce those leases. 

Comment: Phased leasing, instead of a free-for-all, will spare wildlife and the social fabric of the area 

from boom/bust cycles. 

Response: The draft alternatives would make large areas unavailable for leasing, which is a form of 

phased leasing.

Comment: The plan to commit vast tracts of the surface and the subsurface in the planning area totally to 

mineral sprawl appears to be removed from 21st century realities, as well as ignoring the current actual 

conditions already existing in the “Resource Planning Area”. It is as though the draft plan is disconnected 

from both contemporary realities in the region and the county and the land use values it purports to take 

into account. Its very choice of words, such as “minerals” and “other resources”, makes the point. The 

DEIS lacks viability as a credible document because of its overemphasis on energy, but it certainly excels 

in its graphic representation of what SDSBT characterizes as energy company preferences. Energy here... 

energy there...energy everywhere... energy a little bit more or a little bit less (mostly more), but ultimately 

energy. We get the message—the draft plan is nothing more than an energy development document.

Response: The contemporary reality in the region is that the planning area contains 50 trillion cubic feet 

of producible natural gas in areas already leased for gas production and that gas is going to be produced. 

The RMP attempts to balance that impending production with other surface resources in the area for 

which BLM has management responsibility, including wildlife habitats.

Comment: I am a resident of Sublette County and I am very concerned about the pace of the gas field 

development in our area and the management of our public lands. I know the proposed RMP took a lot of 

work but I don’t think that there is a choice that demonstrates the balance we need to see. I get the feeling 

from the RMP that the gas resource gets precedence over all of the other resources. 

Response: The gas resource is discussed at length in the draft EIS because it is a prominent resource and 

its development causes many impacts on other resources. BLM must fully consider the impacts of gas 

development on all other resources.

Comment: Why are we in such a hurry to extract this resource so fast? We don’t treat any of our other 

resources this way. Do we allow hunting at anytime year round just because the animals are there? What 

is the rush? I realize we have a huge energy need in this country and our economy is growing but are we 

willing to sacrifice other values for the good of the people? Let’s develop this resource slowly so that we 

can be scientific about the effects of the development. We can see problems, stop and fix them and then 

continue. Let’s not wait until after the fact to assess the damages.

Response: The fluid mineral development addressed in this RMP is intended to help meet the nation’s 

demand for natural gas. Alternatives 3 and 4 would concentrate development in areas already undergoing 

intense oil and gas development approved through existing NEPA documents, while making other areas 

unavailable for leasing or development. They also focus on accelerating reclamation in these intense 

development areas to restore impacted habitats. 

Comment: Leasing and development are permitted to continue at an excessive pace. There is no 

requirement to rehabilitate drilled terrain in one area before moving on to another. There is no shortage of 

A27-222 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

natural gas at this point therefore no need to proceed with development at the pace that would be 

permitted in the EIS. 

Response: Alternative 4 in the final EIS reduces the area available for leasing from 1,026,790 acres in the 

current RMP approved in 1988 to 758,180 acres and increases the area not available for surface 

occupancy from 21,485 acres to 198,370 acres. The RMP does require reclamation of disturbed lands (see 

Appendix 3 of the draft EIS). Specific reclamation standards, practices, and requirements are developed 

through project-specific EAs and EISs. Based on national statistics the country is currently experiencing a 

shortage of natural gas available to the consumer. None of the planning area adjoins or is adjacent to any 

congressionally established Wilderness areas. Alternatives 3 and 4 do make certain areas unavailable for 

leasing and oil and gas development. The plan does not establish buffers on lands adjacent to the WSAs. 

These lands are available for multiple-use management.

Comment: Please consider slowing down development of the gas fields in the Pinedale Anti-Cline and 

Jonah Field and do not give leases for the Upper Green, Rim, Hoback and Wyoming Range areas. It will 

destroy one of the last remaining bastions for wildlife, fishermen, hunters, photographers, birders, hikers 

and artists. It will also destroy the very values that I know you hold for your children, if it hasn’t already.

Response: Development rates are project-level issues that can be addressed through project level EISs. 

The pace of development occurring in the Jonah Field is consistent with the requirement of the Jonah 

Infill EIS, completed in March of 2006. Development on the Pinedale Anticline is being addressed 

through the Supplemental EIS that is currently being prepared. 

Comment: I am putting in my 2 cents worth of public lands for oil & gas exploration. Right now the 

BLM is simply raping our public lands & I want to see that practice stopped. We in Wyoming need to 

protect our clean air and water and habitat for wildlife. I would like to see all new leasing stopped and to 

even buy back some leases already leased.

Response: Stopping all leasing is not consistent with BLM policy and regulations (refer to page 2-3 in the 

draft EIS/RMP). Buying back leases would require Congressional funding authorization. 

Comment: I hope that when you finalize this plan you will allow significant development to occur in the 

Pinedale and Jonah fields. We should not close an entire planning area to new oil and gas leasing, and 

existing leases should be honored. We should allow the development to occur, and require environmental 

mitigation for sensitive areas.

Response: Under all four alternatives, development in the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Fields would 

continue to be consistent with the existing EISs for these areas. 

Comment: Drilling restrictions and stipulations which are included in the alternative section of this draft 

RMP do not belong. An RMP needs to be more general in nature and should not be site-specific. For 

detailed land use decision, please rely on future EAs and EISs. I support year round drilling with 

appropriate wildlife mitigations.

Response: The RMP builds a framework for subsequent project-level NEPA documents. Such a 

framework includes suggested and required mitigation measures, as well as best management practices. 

As such, it is appropriate for the RMP to set the framework for measures that could reduce impacts.

Comment: I urge your agency to protect and say NO to development in the Upper Green River Valley, 

the Wyoming Range and indicated areas in the Hoback. With the ongoing development in the Jonah and 

Pinedale RMP A27-223 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Pinedale Anticline Fields, I would hope that mitigation measures and performance-based management 

would limit impact to wildlife habitat, as well as our air and water quality.

Response: The RMP is designed to address a reasonable range of alternatives. Alternatives 3 and 4 would 

make much of the federal lands and minerals along the Wind River Front, which includes the Upper 

Green, Upper New Fork River, and Hoback Rim areas, unavailable for new oil and gas leasing or 

unavailable for surface disturbance. Management of federal lands and mineral estates in the Upper Green 

are being addressed in the final EIS. The area does contain some existing oil and gas leases, and the 

leaseholders/operators have valid existing rights to develop and produce the oil and gas resources within 

those leases. Development in the Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline is constrained by a number of 

operator-committed measures and required mitigation that are designed to reduce impacts to surface 

resources such as wildlife.

Comment: I suggest continuing the minerals leasing moratorium in the upper Green River basin for 10 to 

20 years at least or perhaps retiring those mineral interests permanently as a way to protect the scenic, 

wildlife and water resources of the Upper Green River Valley from the Wind River Mountains to the 

Wyoming Range.

Response: The final EIS addresses management of federal lands and mineral estates in the Upper Green. 

Comment: The Upper Green and Wind River Front needs to be kept OFF LIMITS to drilling. This is an 

extremely fragile and irreplaceable area. 

Response: Management of federal lands and mineral estates along the Wind River Front and in the Upper 

Green are addressed in the final EIS.

Comment: As a community member of Cora and the Upper Green. I wish to expresses my concern in the 

allowance of any drilling in this area because will only lead to more drilling. When and if the BLM allows 

for these permits to go through will only causes a chain reaction of perpetual drilling. Eventually drilling 

on private land will ensue. and that threatens what my family and neighbors have been trying to prevent. 

The Privet citizens are doing every thing in their power to prevent drilling in this area, why can’t the 

BLM work toward the same, so that the upper green can remain protected. 

Response: Please note that there is considerable acreage in the Cora and Upper Green area that does not 

contain federal minerals, nor does it fall within BLM’s jurisdiction, but that still currently may be leased 

for oil and gas development.

Comment: One of the areas discussed in the Upper Green River Valley Coalition slide presentation that 

is not recognized in the RMP DEIS is the Ryegrass Area, an area generally west of the Green River and 

east of the Wyoming Range near Daniel, Wyoming. Much of the Ryegrass Area would be designated an 

Unavailable Area pursuant to Alternative 3, although the northern, western, and southern perimeters of it 

would be a Minimally Developed Area. Compare CD Slide 33 with Map 2-8. Pursuant to Alternative 4, 

much of this area would be designated a Large Block NSO Area, although again the perimeter would be a 

Minimally Developed Area. There are a number of reasons this entire area should be protected from any 

future leasing, including leasing subject to an NSO stipulation: 

• Considerable portions of this area are not currently leased, meaning the BLM has a rare 

opportunity to protect an area from leasing and the resource management difficulties that leasing 

creates. Map 1-3. This also presents an opportunity to facilitate meaningful and effective off-site 

mitigation due to development in other areas. 

A27-224 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

• There is little in the way of existing oil and gas development in the area. Map 3-5; CD slide 35. 

Most the area only has a moderate development potential and some of it only has a low potential. 

Map 4-1. 

• This area is entirely occupied by greater sage grouse nesting and brood rearing habitats as 

recognized under Alternative 3 and this is true of the vast majority of the area even under 

Alternative 4. Maps 2-28 and 2-36. 

• This area contains several significant historic sites, including Fort Bonneville, the Prairie Mass 

site, and the Father DeSmet Monument. Map 3-1. 

• The area contains significant expanses of unbroken sagebrush habitat. Map 3-11. Thus this could 

be an important area for use of off-site mitigation funds for either lease purchase/retirement or 

habitat improvement projects. 

• There are several sensitive plant locations in the area. Map 3-12. 

• Almost the entire area is crucial mule deer winter range. Maps 3-16, 3-19. 

• Much of the area is moose crucial winter range. Maps 3-18, 3-19. 

• Much of the area has at least two and in some areas three overlapping crucial ranges, some the 

greatest concentrations of overlapping crucial ranges in the Pinedale Field Office. CD slide 17. 

• The area has a very high terrestrial vertebrate species richness. CD slide 34. 

Given this remarkable concentration of biological and cultural values, all of the Ryegrass Area should be 

designated as Unavailable for future leasing. The loopholes currently present in the provisions applicable 

to Alternative 3, particularly allowance for conversion to an Intensively Developed Field, should be 

eliminated. And, BLM should exert its retained rights on existing leasing by taking actions that include 

but are not limited to requiring phased development, directional drilling, and full compliance with wildlife 

protective stipulations, as discussed above.

Response: The areas unavailable for leasing have been updated in the final EIS. Additional discussion of 

the different oil and gas management areas, how they would work, how areas could be converted from 

one type of area to another, and exceptions have been added to the final EIS. 

Comment: A second area of tremendous value that does not receive the full protection it needs under the 

current RMP DEIS is the Cottonwood Area, just south of the Ryegrass area. CD slide 33. Much of the 

Cottonwood Area would be designated an Unavailable Area pursuant to Alternative 3, although the 

northern perimeter of it would be a Minimally Developed Area. Compare CD Slide 33 with Map 2-8. 

Pursuant to Alternative 4, almost the entire area would be designated a Minimally Developed Area. 

Compare CD slide 33 with Map 2-9. There are a number of reasons this entire area should be protected 

from any future leasing, including leasing subject to an NSO stipulation: 

• There is little in the way of existing oil and gas development in the area. Map 3-5; CD slide 35. 

This area only has a moderate development potential. Map 4-1. 

• This area is entirely occupied by greater sage grouse nesting and brood rearing habitats as 

recognized under Alternative 3 and this is true of the vast majority of the area even under 

Alternative 4. Maps 2-28 and 2-36. 

Pinedale RMP A27-225 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

• The area contains significant expanses of unbroken sagebrush habitat. Map 3-11. Thus this could 

be an important area for use of off-site mitigation funds for either lease purchase/retirement or 

habitat improvement projects. 

• There are several sensitive plant locations in the area. Map 3-12. 

• Some of this area is crucial pronghorn winter range. Maps 3-15, 3-19. 

• There is crucial elk winter range in the area. Maps 3-17, 3-19. 

• Some of the area is moose crucial winter range. Maps 3-18, 3-19. 

• Some of this area has two overlapping crucial ranges for wildlife. CD slide 17. • There are large 

pronghorn parturition areas in the Cottonwood area and some elk calving areas. Map 3-20. 

• The area has a very high terrestrial vertebrate species richness. CD slide 34. 

Given this remarkable concentration of biological values, all of the Cottonwood area should be designated 

as Unavailable for future leasing. The loopholes currently present in the provisions applicable to 

Alternative 3, particularly allowance for conversion to an Intensively Developed Field, should be 

eliminated. And, BLM should exert its retained rights on existing leasing by taking actions that include 

but are not limited to requiring phased development, directional drilling, and full compliance with wildlife 

protective stipulations, as discussed above.

Response: The areas unavailable for leasing have been updated in the final EIS. Additional discussion of 

the different oil and gas management areas, how they would work, how areas could be converted from 

one type of area to another, and exceptions have been added to the final EIS.

Comment: It is time to withdraw the Wyoming Range from future energy leasing. Such a step would 

recognize that Sublette County has already made significant sacrifices to meet the nation’s energy needs. 

The RMP should implement a wiser management approach to the Wyoming Range, one that emphasizes 

conservation of its exceptional wildlife, pure water, and recreational values

Response: BLM does not manage the Wyoming Range.

Comment: This rapid pace of development needs to slow down fast, that’s obvious. These resources do 

not need to be extracted all at once. A viable solution that is not among those considered in the current 

revision of Pinedale BLM’s resource management plan is called cluster development. This entails phased 

development areas that are prioritized according to the resources available and the habitat affected. There 

would be, for example, eight phases overlaying the county in the highest potential development areas. 

Three of these phases are already occupied and under intense development. Outside of those phases, 

drilling would be more concentrated and contained, into clusters or pods. This would provide buffer 

zones, allowing wildlife “room to roam” between the clusters. No other clusters would be allowed to be 

developed until the previous clusters are reclaimed. Instead of widespread impacts, the intensity would be 

contained and would help reclamation and mitigation efforts succeed. How else can you expect to execute 

“off-site mitigation” if you don’t plan for areas that can be rested for the recovery of wildlife and soils?

Response: While it is not called clusters or clustered development, Alternatives 3 and 4 do establish 

concentrated development areas and also do establish areas not available for oil and gas leasing or for 

surface occupancy for oil and gas development. The unavailable areas would provide respite areas for 

wildlife and for offsite wildlife habitat augmentation projects. 

A27-226 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Comment: Please be advised that I will support any reasonable method to stop your plan to allow any 

and all public lands, and even the private lands with mineral rights under the control of the BLM in the 

Green River and Hoback River basins, to be auctioned to the oil and gas industry to drill as they wish. I 

will encourage a legal injunction to stop this intrusion into these public lands, if necessary. I urge you to 

do the right thing for the local community and protect the Green River and Hoback River basins from 

drilling. 

Response: The proposed actions and decisions in the draft RMP/EIS were developed in full accordance 

with the governing laws and regulations.

Comment: Since the RMP deals with BLM land usage for possibly as many as 20 years in the future, we 

are requesting that the BLM exclude lands within a two mile radius of the Town of Pinedale from oil and 

gas leasing.

Response: Only 18% (2,770 acres) of the lands within a two mile radius of the city limits of Pinedale is 

federal lands under BLM jurisdiction. Approximately 1,860 of those acres are on the Pinedale Anticline, 

of which 1,720 acres are leased and held by oil and gas production (HBP), 100 acres are leased but not 

held by production, and 140 acres are not leased. The remaining ±910 acres are northeast of the city limits 

near Fremont Lake and fall within a crucial big game (mule deer) migration route and/or the Fremont 

Lake/Pinedale municipal watershed. The 2-mile radius contains an additional 1,540 acres of federal 

minerals underlying private surface, of which 740 acres are currently leased. Alternatives 3 and 4 

recommend that the BLM-administered lands northeast of Pinedale be withheld from leasing. It is very 

unlikely the lands on the Pinedale Anticline would be in a non-leased status during the anticipated 

lifespan of this RMP.

Comment: I therefore strongly oppose this Alternative and support instead Alternative 3 with the 

following revision included in its final form: • No new gas fields shall be developed until existing fields 

(Jonah and PAPA) have been fully developed and reclaimed. 

Response: BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of existing valid oil and gas leases.

Comment: The RMP’s 30,000-foot view of the entire management area provides us the opportunity to 

consider the cumulative impacts of existing and proposed uses of public lands. With the vast majority of 

the field office already under lease, there is little that this RMP can truly alter as existing law favors lease 

rights and development plans generally trump any new protective measures that might otherwise be 

considered. With that in mind, it is critical that steps be taken to maintain areas that have not yet been 

leased.

Response: Currently about 744,000 acres, or 61% of the BLM-administered mineral estate, is leased; a 

majority, but not “vast”. The alternatives attempt to provide areas that could remain unleased and 

undeveloped for the life of the RMP to provide wildlife habitats and other surface values.

Comment: Pace of Development: The BLM should reconsider its rapid pace of leasing lands in the 

Pinedale Field Office. Already there are difficulties with constructing the necessary infrastructure to 

properly extract and market our state’s natural gas resources. As you are well aware, existing natural gas 

pipeline capacity is at its limit in western Wyoming. These conditions prevent the state of Wyoming and 

the federal government from collecting the full value of their resources. Currently, there is a 

$4.00/MMbtu price differential between the Opal Hub and larger national markets. 

Response: Alternative 4 reduces the area available for leasing from 1,026,790 in the current RMP 

approved in 1988 to 758,180 and increases the area not available for surface occupancy from 21,485 to 

Pinedale RMP A27-227 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

198,370 acres. Alternatives 3 and 4 do make certain areas unavailable for leasing and oil and gas 

development. In essence, these scenarios would limit or restrict the overall rate/pace of development in 

the planning area. BLM recognizes that pipelines leaving Wyoming are functioning at or near capacity. 

BLM also recognizes that when there is not enough capacity to transport the full volume of gas that 

can/could be produced from wells within the state, wells are shut until pipeline capacity is available.

Comment: I ask you to remove the restrictions you have in place in the alternatives and instead initial 

dialogue between the environmentalists and the energy companies to come to some compromise, which 

will allow these fields to be developed and at the same time impose a minimum of damage to the 

environment.

Response: You make an excellent suggestion about working with energy companies and environmental 

groups to reach compromise on issues. Unfortunately, not all issues are solely between these two broad 

entities. Issues concerning the management of federal lands and minerals also exist with numerous 

members of the public not affiliated or associated with either of these groups. BLM certainly desires to 

work out solutions to all land and mineral management issues. Unfortunately, compromise is not always 

attainable; consequently, management restrictions are necessary.

Comment: I strongly support an RMP that views energy development over a 20 year period for 

maximum development and reserving site specific mitigations to future NEPA documents.

Response: Under all four alternatives the RMP provides for energy development for the life of the plan 

(i.e., at least through 2020). It also builds a framework for subsequent project-level NEPA documents. 

Such a framework includes suggested and required mitigation measures, as well as best management 

practices. As such it is appropriate for the RMP to set the framework for measures that could reduce 

impacts.

Comment: Alternative 3 does not take into account the vast field of natural gas in the project area to be 

developed for minerals and has far too restrictive criteria.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to present a reasonable range of alternatives and make 

projections of the impacts associated with each alternative. Accordingly, the document addresses varying 

levels of oil and gas leasing and development. Leasing and development would continue to occur in the 

planning area under each of the alternatives. 

Comment: I strongly support an RMP that views energy development over a 20 year period for 

maximum development and reserving site specific mitigations to future NEPA documents.

Response: Under all four alternatives the RMP provides for energy development for the life of the plan 

(i.e., at least through 2020). It also builds a framework for subsequent project-level NEPA documents. 

Such a framework includes suggested and required mitigation measures, as well as best management 

practices. As such it is appropriate for the RMP to set the framework for measures that could reduce 

impacts.

Comment: It was a shock to us to learn about the Eagle Prospect Unit and now the BLM is proposing to 

open the Upper Green River, Upper New Fork, and Hoback Rim areas for oil and gas leasing. We are 

adamantly opposed to opening these areas up for leasing. Please place these areas in the “not available” 

category.

Response: The Eagle project is on USFS lands and is being addressed through an EIS being developed by 

USFS. The draft EIS/RMP does not “open” the Upper Green River, Upper New Fork River, and Hoback 

A27-228 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Rim areas to oil and gas leasing. Under the current RMP approved in 1988, these areas are open to oil and 

gas leasing. A leasing moratorium was initiated in 1999 that withholds leasing along the Wind River 

Front and Hoback Rim area pending the completion of a revision of the 1988 RMP. This draft EIS/RMP 

constitutes that revision. Alternatives 1 and 2 would retain the referenced area open to leasing; Alternative 

3 would make the area unavailable for leasing; Alternative 4 would make portions of the area unavailable 

for leasing and other portions available for leasing but unavailable for surface occupancy. Management of 

federal lands and mineral estates in the Upper Green/Hoback Rim area are being addressed in the final 

EIS.

Comment: I feel that opening the region below the Upper Green River Lakes for oil and gas extraction is 

unnecessary. Such endeavors would irreparably diminish the greatest value which that region currently 

offers to all of us.

Response: The lands and minerals for approximately 18 miles downstream from Green River Lakes fall 

under the jurisdiction of USFS and are not involved in this RMP. The RMP does address management of 

federal lands and mineral estates in the upper Green River/Hoback Rim area below the USFS lands. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would make these unavailable for oil and gas leasing or new leases would be 

unavailable for surface occupancy. The area does contain some existing oil and gas leases and the 

leaseholders/operators have valid existing rights to develop and produce the oil and gas resources within 

those leases.

Comment: The BLM has shown unacceptable stewardship of the Mesa, Anticline and Jonah field with 

the mineral leases. How dare the BLM suppose to ride herd on a group of Gas & oil companies in the 

Upper Green. The alternatives in the Draft RMP are all unacceptable. No mineral leasing in the Upper 

Green is the only option. Re-impose the previous moratorium on drilling and create new legislation to 

support moratoriums on drilling & selling leases to mineral companies in the Upper Green.

Response: Alternatives 3 and 4 would make the Wind River Front and Upper Green River area 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing or unavailable of surface occupancy; however, holders of existing 

leases have a valid existing right to develop and produce those leases. Management of federal lands and 

mineral estates along the Wind River Front and in the Upper Green are being addressed in the final EIS. 

The leasing moratorium instituted in 1999 was intended to withhold the lands from leasing until the 

management of these lands and mineral estates could be evaluated through an updated land use plan. The 

moratorium was never intended to be more than a placeholder until the RMP was revised and a decision 

made as to whether these lands would or would not be available for leasing. The moratorium was only 

intended to cover leasing; it did not extend to drilling because holders of existing leases within the area 

have valid legal rights to develop and produce those leases. 

Comment: thus far the oil and gas development has been so much so fast that not only can the 

government inspections not keep up (this includes inspecting well casing and plugging operations by 

properly trained personnel—operations that, if not done correctly, would allow tremendous toxins, 

including benzene, to enter the water table), but the oil and gas companies can’t even get enough 

employees to do all jobs properly. These problems would be solved if the development is required to slow 

down over the next 10 to 20 years. 

Response: While it is not called clusters or clustered development, Alternatives 3 and 4 do establish 

concentrated development areas and also do establish areas not available for oil and gas leasing or for 

surface occupancy for oil and gas development. The unavailable areas would provide respite areas for 

wildlife and for offsite wildlife habitat augmentation projects. In essence, these scenarios would limit or 

restrict the overall rate/pace of development in the planning area. 

Pinedale RMP A27-229 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: Closing an entire planning area to gas development is not only bad for our nation but is also 

illegal. Valid and existing lease rights have to have reasonable access to them otherwise it is considered a 

“taking” As you move forward on this RMP you need to keep in mind that pre-rmp lease rights exist and 

are very strong from a legal standpoint.

Response: Closing the entire planning area to gas development was not an alternative considered in detail 

in the draft EIS. BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of existing, valid oil and gas 

leases.

Alternative Power Resources 

Comment: Please instead prepare and consider and use the environmental resources already present, such 

as water, why not use HYDROPOWER and WINDMILLS, to provide clean energy power. Start at the 

coastline of the Mississippi (avoid another Katrina), all the way to Yellowstone. The geysers are natural 

water power under the earth, can you channel it?

Response: This suggested alternative is beyond the scope of this RMP. 

Comment: I partially* support Alternative 3 as the BLM considers a management plan for the Upper 

Green River Valley. *If our nation has enough money to do this extra drilling, I must assume that we 

might also divert these funds to pursue renewable energy development. We simply need the mindset and 

heart to do that. 

Response: Oil and gas drilling is financed by the operators, not by BLM.

Comment: Why does our bright government keep spending MY MONEY on wanting to DRILL for more 

oil in our few remaining wildernesses, when you should be investing that money in alternative energy 

means. 

Response: Oil and gas drilling is financed by the operators, not by BLM.

Comment: The BLM is under a “federal mandate to produce as much domestic energy as possible” so it 

would be to your advantage to put this much work into pursuing renewable forms of energy such as solar 

or wind power. Stopping oil and gas development and pursuing more environment-friendly forms of 

renewable energy would be a positive step toward a desperately-needed shift in perspective, lifestyle, and 

priorities for the U.S. 

Response: BLM is not in the business of “producing” energy, but under various federal laws and 

regulations does make certain federal lands and minerals under its jurisdiction available for lease, patent, 

and ROW for the develop of energy resources, whether it be oil and gas, coal, uranium, wind, geothermal, 

or solar.

Comments with Multiple Issues 

Comment: C. Means By Which The BLM Can Meet Its Obligations To Protect The Natural Environment 

In Areas That Have Been Leased, And By Which It Can Meet Its Stated Management Objectives In 

Unavailable Areas And Large Block NSO Areas. There are numerous means by which the BLM can 

protect the natural environment in areas that have already been leased, or in areas that might be leased in 

the future, in full compliance with the rights BLM has retained pursuant to its standard lease form. 

Pursuing these actions would help ensure the agency meets its legal obligations under numerous statutes 

enacted to protect the natural environment. See 1-11 to 1-23 (reviewing many of these legal obligations). 

And perhaps most importantly, these are means by which the BLM’s stated objectives for Unavailable 

A27-230 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Areas and Large Block NSO Areas can be achieved despite some or all of the management area having 

been leased. 2-47, 2-49 (providing statements of management goals for Unavailable Areas and Large 

Block NSO Areas, which are to give emphasis to protection of the natural environment, especially 

wildlife values). These provisions should be incorporated into Alternative 3 so as to make it acceptable as 

the RMP for the Pinedale Field Office. 

1. Paced and Phased Development: One of the most important means by which the environmental values 

in Large Block NSO and Unavailable Areas can be protected is by adopting specific provisions requiring 

phased and/or paced development in these areas. This is an “obvious” way to ensure that well density 

does not exceed the trigger for converting these areas-areas that are explicitly devoted to environmental 

protection-to one or more Intensively Developed Fields. As noted above, section 4 of the standard lease 

form specifically allows regulation of the rate of development, and BLM has recognized the validity of 

this approach in the Pinedale Anticline EIS. The BLM should make specific provision for phased and 

paced development in the RMP as a requirement for development of existing leases in the Large Block 

NSO and Unavailable Areas. The Interior Board of Land Appeals recently recognized that section 4 of the 

standard lease form allows the BLM to protect resources, even after a lease has been issued. National 

Wildlife Federation et al., 169 IBLA 146, 164 (2006). 

2. Clustered Development and Directional Drilling: Another important means to achieve environmental 

protection is to require clustered development and the related technique of requiring directional drilling. 

Again, there is no doubt that imposing such requirements in the Large Block NSO and Unavailable Areas 

is well within the BLM’s retained rights under a federal oil and gas lease. We urge revision of 

Alternatives 3 and 4 to include clear requirements that development in these areas will be limited to no 

greater than 160-acre per well surface spacing, or less if needed to protect environmental values, as a way 

to compel utilization of clustered development and directional drilling. Oil and gas lessees may have a 

right to retrieve all the oil and gas on a leasehold, but they do not have a right to do it exactly when, 

where, and how they chose; specifying when, where, and how oil and gas development occurs is well 

within BLM’s authority, and in fact it, in the words of the Mineral Leasing Act, it has an obligation to 

“regulate” oil and gas development in this way. Consequently, the BLM should recognize and assert its 

rights in the RMP, and require clustered development and the use of directional drilling in the Large 

Block NSO and Unavailable Areas designated in the RMP. This is necessary to ensure the stated 

management objectives for these areas are met and maintained, as well as to prevent unnecessary or 

undue degradation of the public lands. 

3. Lease Suspension: Lease suspension is another means at BLM’s disposal to ensure full environmental 

protection is maintained in management areas with a conservation focus, specifically Large Block NSO 

and Unavailable Areas. As noted above, the Mineral Leasing Act gives the BLM authority to suspend 

leases “in the interest of conservation,” a term that includes conservation of environmental values. The 

BLM should utilize this authority to fully protect Large Block NSO and Unavailable Areas, and the RMP 

should make provisions in this regard so as to meet the management objectives for these areas. The BLM 

has exercised this authority in other areas, such as during development of the Jack Morrow Hill 

Coordinated Activity Plan, and is contemplating using it in the Pinedale Anticline Supplemental EIS for 

interim protection of some Pinedale Anticline flank areas that are leased. 

4. Unitization: Another mechanism that could be utilized to protect Unavailable and Large Block NSO 

areas, not to mention Minimally Developed areas, would be to require unitization of leases. This would 

allow lease holders to enjoy the benefits of development of leases while protecting sensitive areas. While 

there may be some limits on the ability to require unitization, the BLM could certainly urge operators to 

enter into voluntary unitization agreements and use other mechanism (pooling orders) to pursue unified 

development in sensitive areas. Unitization is a key component of the development plan on the Roan 

Plateau in Colorado which seeks also to protect the natural environment in that area, and BLM should 

Pinedale RMP A27-231 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

thoroughly consider that model. Pursuing unitization would allow for orderly development with less 

infrastructure and disturbance, while helping to eliminate issues such as those related to drainage. 

5. Additional Conditions of Development: Other means to protect the natural environment that are well 

within BLM’s retained rights to require include limitations on well pad size, requiring closed-loop drilling 

fluid systems, the use of remote well monitoring and car pooling and other traffic reduction techniques, 

and requirements to bury utility lines. The BLM should require these and other techniques and provisions 

as prerequisites to development on existing leases in Large Block NSO and Unavailable Areas. In 

addition, because it also has authority to require these provisions in Minimally Developed Areas and 

Intensively Developed Fields, it should require them as necessary to protect environmental values in these 

areas, too. 

6. Retention and Enforcement of Lease Stipulations: One of the most important means by which the BLM 

can ensure that the natural environment is protected is to ensure that timing stipulations oriented toward 

the protection of wildlife crucial ranges are not abandoned and are in fact vigorously enforced. The 

WGFD recognizes the importance of these stipulations in its report Recommendations for Development 

of Oil & Gas Resources within Crucial & Important Wildlife Habitats, available at http://g£state.wy.us/ 

downloads/pdf/og pdf. The stated intent of Large Block NSO and Unavailable Areas is to protect wildlife 

habitat, provide refuge areas, and protect migration routes. 2-47, 2-49. Given this management focus, the 

BLM should expressly state in the RMP that permit waivers and exceptions to these lease timing 

stipulations will not be allowed in these areas. With waivers or exceptions to timing stipulations 

elsewhere in the planning area (i.e., in minimally and intensively developed areas) the RMP must state 

more clearly the extremely limited and carefully specified conditions under which these exceptions could 

occur, as well as how the WGFD and the general public will be able to participate in the decision-making. 

Requiring these stipulations as provisions on any new leases that are issued in the Pinedale Field Office 

should also be maintained in all crucial wildlife habitats wherever they may be located. This issue will be 

discussed further Section V of these comments where the BLM’s proposed “performance based” 

mitigation in Appendix 3 is discussed. 

7. Lease Buyout and Trade: Last, the BLM should fully consider and make provision for lease buyout and 

trades, particularly in areas devoted to conservation of environmental values. While we realize that lease 

buyouts might require Congressional authorization or that means to acquire or provide these monies 

might be beyond what the RMP can specifically require, the BLM certainly at a minimum can provide in 

the RMP that lease buyout will always be considered and explored when development in management 

areas devoted to conservation is proposed. And pursuing trades of leases from willing traders is certainly 

well within the BLM’s authority without additional Congressional authorization, and BLM should make 

provision in the RMP to fully explore and utilize this obvious means of environmental protection to the 

maximum extent possible in management areas devoted to conservation. Specifically, the RMP should 

delineate priority areas for lease buyouts and trades to be considered, such as existing leases in 

unavailable areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), and in some cases large block NSO 

areas. By removing leases in these areas, the BLM would be ensuring that there are sufficient large block 

habitat areas relatively near existing fields for use of off-site mitigation funds on habitat improvement 

projects, and would better ensure the management objectives for these areas are adhered to. 

Response: The draft EIS/RMP does comply with and comport to the laws and regulations referenced in 

pages 1-11 through 1-23 of the draft EIS. The draft EIS/RMP does provide for restrictions on post-lease 

actions in Unavailable and Large Block NSO areas. Page 2-8 states: “based on site- or project-specific 

environmental analysis, conditions of approval (COA) could be applied at the APD and Sundry Notice 

stage, and at subsequent development stages, to mitigate potential impacts from oil and gas operations 

within existing lease areas, providing the leaseholder’s right to develop the lease remains intact.” Page 2-

47 through 2-49 provide a summary statement. Goals and objectives for various resource components are 

A27-232 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

found in each alternative. The Unavailable and Large Block NSO designations are some of the proposed 

management actions intended to achieve those goals and objectives. 

The RMP/EIS provides the framework for the management of resources within the planning area, and as 

such it provides management goals, objectives, and broad management actions for the various resources 

analyzed. Depending on the alternative and the given Unavailable or Large Block NSO area, the amount 

and connectivity of the existing area will vary as will the potential for development and the amount of 

development needed to extract the mineral resources. Based on these variables, it is not appropriate for 

the RMP to set a one-size-fits-all development rate. It would be appropriate for project-level analysis to 

address this issue. As provided in 43 CFR 3101.1-2, BLM does have the authority to impose “reasonable 

restrictions” to post-lease actions where the lease is not encumbered with stipulations. 

The reference to Section 4 in 169 IBLA 146, 164 (2006) is to a 1948 version of Section 4. The current 

Section 4 language differs from the 1948 version, see below. You are correct, Section 4 of the standard 

lease form does give BLM the authority to regulate the pace of development; however, the intent of 

Section 4 is to ensure the leaseholder exercises reasonable diligence in developing and producing, and 

must prevent unnecessary damage to, loss of, or waste of leased resources. It is not directed at the 

management of surface resources. The following is the current Section 4 from the standard lease form: 

“Section 4. Diligence, rate of development, unitization, and drainage—Lessee must exercise reasonable 

diligence in developing and producing, and must prevent unnecessary damage to, loss of, or waste of 

leased resources. Lessor reserves right to specify rates of development and production in the public 

interest and to require lessee to subscribe to a cooperative or unit plan, within 30 days of notice, if 

deemed necessary for proper development and operation of area, field, or pool embracing these leased 

lands. Lessee must drill and produce wells necessary to protect leased lands from drainage or pay 

compensatory royalty for drainage in amount determined by lessor.” 

BLM’s authority to approve lease suspensions and units is established through regulations. It is not 

necessary to make an RMP decision to this effect. The RMP builds a framework for subsequent projectlevel NEPA documents. Such a framework includes suggested and required mitigation measures, as well 

as best management practices, including directional drilling, closed-loop systems, etc. Therefore, it is 

appropriate for the RMP to set the framework for measures that could reduce impacts to air quality. 

BLM land use planning guidelines relative to minerals management specify that land use plans must 

establish criteria for evaluating waivers, modifications, and exceptions to lease stipulations and COAs. 

The draft EIS/RMP is consistent with this guidance. Appendix 8 states that BLM would coordinate 

exceptions and waivers with WGFD. Appendix 7 has been updated in the final EIS. 

BLM does not have the statutory authority to buy back leases and consequently does not identify potential 

parcels or areas. The draft EIS/RMP does, however, identify opportunities for lease exchange. Page 2-83, 

under Alternative 3, states: “Non-producing leases within areas unavailable for new leasing would be 

exchanged for leases outside Unavailable Areas on a case-by-case basis with willing participants.” For 

Alternative 3, this applies to all lands identified as Unavailable For Leasing, including ACECs. This 

language has been added to the Large Block NSOs and Unavailable for Leasing designations in 

Alternative 4. 

Comment: Page 1-5 “cooperating agencies (also called cooperators) provide special expertise” Page 1-6 

“Planning issues are determined from demands, concerns, conflicts, or problems concerning use or 

management of public lands and resources. These issues are usually expressed in terms of the potential 

adverse consequences or effects that a particular land or resource use may have on other land or resources 

used or valued by another or for another purpose.” Comment: It is vital to recognize some uses are 

temporary in nature, such as oil and gas development, and that opportunities exist for sequential multiple 

Pinedale RMP A27-233 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

uses in the future while other uses (expansion of population centers and populated areas) are essentially 

permanent. Although recreation may be restricted at the time an area is being intensively developed for 

oil and gas, such uses may be more widespread once development is completed and reclamation occurs. 

Multiple use doesn’t mean that all uses can occur at the same time, rather they may sequentially occur on 

the same landscape over time. 

Page 1-9 Planning criteria “Planning and management direction will be focused on the relative values of 

resources and not on the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or economic 

output.” Comment: We recognize that BLM is not bound by providing the greatest economic return. 

Nevertheless, it is inappropriate to weigh relative values based on the “American Idol” model of counting 

votes or comment letters. It is crucial for all land use decisions to be based upon scientific data and 

professional judgments rather than emotional rhetoric. 

Page 1-9 “The planning decisions in the RMP will apply only to the BLM-administered public land 

surface and mineral estate in the planning area, including BLM-administered minerals that underlie 

nonfederal lands (split estate).” Comment: We recommend that the FEIS identify all standards 

recommended by cooperating agencies that differ from the standards those agencies apply to lands under 

their jurisdiction. It needs to be made clear to the public where substantial additional requirements are 

imposed on activities on federal land at the request of state and local governments. 

Page 1-12 “Mineral Leasing Act of 1920” Comment: BLM must recognize that the Mineral Leasing act, 

as well as Wyoming’s oil and gas regulations, requires prevention of the waste of oil and gas and protect 

correlative rights between parties on different lands. Prevention of waste is defined as, among other 

things, developing the oil and gas in a manner that achieves maximum economic recovery. Protection of 

correlative rights includes the concept of maintaining a level playing field so that operators on one set of 

lands do not face extraordinary costs not faced by operators of the same resource pool on adjacent lands. 

Fluid mineral resources underlying lands unavailable to leasing and without remnant existing leases 

would be unrecoverable. Resources underlying areas unavailable for leasing but with remnant existing 

leases would require substantial mitigation or offsite development actions such as directional drilling (so 

long as this does not infringe upon lease rights), and these areas would experience increased development 

costs. Leased hydrocarbon resources located beyond the technical or economic reach of directional 

drilling would be considered inaccessible and therefore unrecoverable. All mitigation comes at a cost. 

Rendering resources unrecoverable due to directional drilling and excessive surface use restrictions will 

likely result in a “waste of resources.”

Response: The duration of an impact or disturbance is relative. When considered over a millennium or 

even a century, oil and gas development may truly be temporary; however, when considered over a 

human generation or human lifespan it may, in effect, be permanent. For example, the Salt Creek Field 

has been in operation since the 1880s and the Big Piney-La Barge area has been in operation since the 

1920s. The RMP identifies impacts expected from the implementation of the various alternatives 

analyzed. The NEPA and BLM planning processes by design solicit public involvement and include 

cooperating agencies. BLM evaluates public comments on their substantive merit to the proposal, not on 

who submitted the comment or suggestion. You are correct, the MLA does intend the prevention of 

waste, but specifically the prevention of waste caused by an operator’s actions. It does not obligate the 

Secretary of the Interior to make available all lands within his/her jurisdiction for lease or unrestricted 

development. To the contrary, FLPMA requires BLM to manage and protect surface resource values in 

conjunction with developing mineral resources. The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 

1987 requires the Secretary of the Interior to “regulate all surface-disturbing activities conducted pursuant 

to any lease issued under this Act, and shall determine reclamation and other actions as required in the 

interest of conservation of surface resources.” The draft EIS/RMP is consistent with these requirements.

A27-234 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Comment: 1. Alternative 3 severely and needlessly limits energy production. 2. The Preferred 

Alternative is based on a limited RFD that one could argue is outdated. Any Record of Decision should be 

based on a more accurate RFD based on the size and scope of both the Jonah Field and Pinedale 

Anticline. 3. The Preferred Alternative is not consistent with the mineral leasing act especially in the areas 

designated for “minimal development”. 4. The Record of Decision must evaluate the positive 

socioeconomic benefits of natural gas development. 5. The Record of Decision must comply with the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Response: The draft EIS presents four alternatives that range from strong commodity production to 

strong environmental protection. The plan does take the nation’s energy needs into consideration, but it 

also takes the other resources values within the planning area into consideration, as required by numerous 

laws and regulations. Alternative 2 purposely addresses enhanced commodity production, whereas 

Alternative 3 purposely addresses enhanced surface resource protection. Presenting four alternatives was 

done to meet the NEPA requirement to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. 

The final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil and gas 

resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other oil and gas 

development environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area assume full 

field development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a reasonable and 

foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period. 

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 states: “All lands subject to disposition under this chapter which are 

known or believed to contain oil or gas deposits may be leased by the Secretary (emphasis added).” It is 

within the Secretary’s authority to designate certain lands unavailable for leasing. The draft EIS/RMP 

does address the socioeconomic affects of the four alternatives. The effects of natural gas development 

are part of the analysis. The management recommendations under all four alternatives are compliant with 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Comment: The BLM should: 

1. Update the RFD. 

2. Defer site specific mitigations in the RMP. 

3. Develop new winter drilling BMPs 

4. Improve access for development 

5. Ensure the RMP is compliant with the Mineral Leasing Act and the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Response: The final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil 

and gas resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other oil 

and gas development environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area 

assume full field development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a 

reasonable and foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period. BLM is 

required under NEPA and CEQ regulations to mitigate impacts to the extent practicable. A blanket 

deferral of all mitigations in the RMP is not reasonable or practical, nor is it consistent with FLPMA or 

regulations. The management recommendations under all four alternatives are compliant with the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. 

Comment: The following items are inappropriate for an RMP in Alternative 3: - Seasonal drilling 

stipulations. These are outdated techniques. With emerging technologies, wildlife can be protected 

without the seasonal stipulations. - Mandated directional drilling and clustered development - this should 

be an important feature in the subsequent project level NEPA processes. - Removes language that allows 

areas designated for minimal development to become developed if proven to be lucrative. This proposal 

Pinedale RMP A27-235 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

goes against the intent of the planning process. - Requirement of cleanest technology: should be utilized 

during the EIS process - not the RMP.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. Alternative 3 is 

designed to provide an enhance level of surface resource protection and therefore a continuation of 

seasonal restrictions would be appropriate. Timing restriction conditions of approval for wildlife when 

used appropriately are very useful in maintaining areas for feeding, breeding, and sheltering. The problem 

is not that they are outdated, but when faced with a heavily developed energy field with constant human 

presence, noise, and surface disturbing activities, BLM cannot effectively use timing restrictions. There 

are certain activities such as maintenance actions that cannot be stipulated, and may still disturb wildlife. 

Directional drilling and cluster development (e.g., multiple wells from a single pad, centralized 

production facilities, etc.) are some of the best management practices listed in Appendix 5 of the draft 

EIS/RMP for use when and where appropriate. They are not appropriate or necessary everywhere or all 

the time; therefore, it would be inappropriate to mandate their use. Such BMPs would not be appropriate, 

for example, in the case of an exploratory well in an area with minimal resource concerns and no other 

well pads or production facilities within a reasonable distance. BMPs, such as directional drilling and 

“clustered development”, would be included in project-level NEPA documents. 

The language allowing conversion from Minimally Developed to Intensively Developed is designed to 

allow for expansion of existing fields, such as the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, and Big Piney-La Barge 

until the boundaries of productive areas for these areas are established through delineation wells. Prior to 

expanding the Intensively Developed Area boundaries, additional NEPA analysis would be required. 

Please note that the term “Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” 

in the final EIS. 

The RMP builds a framework for subsequent project-level NEPA documents. Such a framework includes 

suggested and required mitigation measures, as well as best management practices. Therefore, it is 

appropriate for the RMP to set the framework for measures that could reduce impacts to air quality. 

Please note, however, the ultimate authority over air quality resides with WDEQ and EPA.

Comment: We ask that the RMP require the following: 

1. That the BLM require best management practices by all industry operators. These practices 

should improve and change over the time period of this RMP. 

2. Directional drilling as the standard practice for energy drilling the area being planned in this 

RMP. We have be told by industry experts that directional drilling is standard practice in other 

countries and is economically possible, especially in environmentally-sensitive areas, as is the 

case in much of the RMP area. 

3. We ask that the RMP specifically outline an Adaptive Environmental Management system or 

something similar, for addressing unforeseen effects from the activities of increased energy 

activities. 

4. The best possible mitigation practices and policies to address the impacts of the activities the 

BLM is permitting through this RMP. 

5. A slower pace of energy development for the RMP area, to allow Pinedale and fellow Sublette 

County communities to adequately respond to the impacts that we are already struggling with. 

A27-236 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: The best management practices listed in Appendix 5 of the draft EIS/RMP would be utilized 

when and where appropriate. They are not appropriate or necessary everywhere or all the time; therefore, 

it would be inappropriate to mandate their use. Such BMPs would not be appropriate, for example, in the 

case of an exploratory well in an area with minimal resource concerns and where there are no other well 

pads or production facilities within a reasonable distance. BMPs, such as directional drilling and 

“clustered development”, would be included in project-level NEPA documents. 

Directional drilling is certainly a best management practice to be used where feasible. Directional drilling 

is being used on the Pinedale Anticline with lateral reaches out to about 1⁄2 mile. Where feasible, 

horizontal drilling is being used in portions of the La Barge Platform. The viable lateral (horizontal) 

distance for directional drilling varies with the depth to the productive/target formation(s). That is, the 

shallower the formation, the shorter the lateral/horizontal distance. 

It is neither reasonable nor necessary to have a blanket requirement for directional drilling for all wells. 

For example, exploratory wells where there are not existing well pads within the technical/economic 

direction offset distance for the depth of the target formation, where there are no resource concerns 

warranting offsite location of a well pad, or where other mitigation such as mat pads satisfactorily reduce 

the impact to surface resources. 

While it is not called paced development, Alternatives 3 and 4 do establish concentrated development 

areas and also do establish areas not available for oil and gas leasing or for surface occupancy for oil and 

gas development. The unavailable areas would provide respite areas for wildlife and for offsite wildlife 

habitat augmentation projects. In essence, these scenarios would limit or restrict the overall rate/pace of 

development in the planning area. 

Comment: Page 2-49 “Emphasis in these areas would be on providing contiguous wildlife habitat, 

providing wildlife refuge areas and migration routes, public land recreation opportunities, opportunities 

for appropriate non-surface-disturbing activities, and maintenance and improvement of current resource 

conditions. These areas are comprised of WSAs, which are non-discretionary closure areas for oil and gas 

leasing, and other areas that would be administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing.” Comment: 

BLM has not explained why Large Block NSO areas would not provide adequate protection for 

“administratively closed” areas. Page 2-116 Lands and Realty Management “f. Exceptions to ROW 

avoidance and exclusion areas (Map 2-32; Table 2-27, p. 2-165) would be considered if the activity would 

meet the following criteria: 

• Not create substantial surface disturbance 

• Be located in areas with a high potential for successful reclamation 

• Have impacts that would be temporary 

• Be compatible with other resource values being protected 

• Be beneficial to the resources being managed.”

Comment: We are concerned that large avoidance areas will result in wells not being drilled or produced 

if ROWs are limited. BLM needs to explain how the last criteria can be met along with those activities 

that are restricted in ROW exclusion areas. BLM also needs to clarify whether these restrictions apply 

only to major corridors as opposed to much smaller oil and gas lease related flowlines, pipelines and 

roads. 

Pages 2-118, 2-120–122 Prohibition of water disposal pits. Comment: The term “water disposal pit” is 

undefined, which makes it unclear whether BLM is referring to produced water pits or reserve and 

completion pits. This term must be clarified. We assume this would not apply to reserve and completion 

Pinedale RMP A27-237 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

pits since closed systems are either uneconomic or technically infeasible in many situations and requiring 

their use would be excessive. 

Response: The impact analysis for wildlife resources on page 4-210 of the draft EIS states the 

Unavailable Area designation would protect wildlife habitat from surface disturbing activities; whereas 

the Large Block NSO designation could protect wildlife values. That is exactly what the allowance for 

exception provides. If an avoidance area must be crossed, and impacts can be addressed reasonably, then 

an exception can be issued. All valid and existing rights would be honored. If an area has current oil and 

gas leases, ROWs would be authorized to provide reasonable access and transportation of natural gas 

products. ROW avoidance and exclusion areas would apply to all ROWs. Definitions for water disposal 

pits, water evaporation pits, surface discharge, temporary pits, and permanent pits have been added to the 

glossary in the final EIS.

Comment: The DRMP includes numerous restricted areas but gives very little or no justification for 

creating them. USQ requests that the basis for prohibiting development or surface use in the following 

areas be clearly indicated or that the restrictions be deleted. If the restrictions are retained in the FRMP, 

USQ requests that the BLM Reservoir Management Group (RMG) quantify the magnitude of the lost 

energy reserves caused by closure of these areas: 

1. Large block NSO area such as the large NSO area west of Pinedale in the preferred alternative 

which may have potential for development 

2. Expanded buffer areas around leks, Lander Trail, Sublette Cutoff Trail and New Fork River 

3. VRM Class I and Class II areas 

4. Areas that are closed to leasing (pg. 4-32) 

5. Areas that are identified as unsuitable for surface disturbance or occupancy (pg. 4-32). This is 

subjective and must be deleted or the areas must be spelled out. 

6. Slopes greater than 25% and sensitive soils with slopes greater than 8% (pg. 4-63). 

These areas are also designated as right-of-way (“ROW”) exclusion areas throughout the DRMP. Again, 

no justification for the exclusion is given. The maps provided in the DRMP are inadequate and do not 

allow the reader to determine precisely where the proposed exclusion areas are. BLM must provide 

justification to support designating these areas as off-limits to pipelines, access roads and other ROWs. 

This would deny access to existing leases and other valid authorizations. Blanket restrictions that do not 

allow for case-by-case project analysis are unreasonable.

Response: The rationale for decisions included in the Preferred Alternative of the draft EIS is found in 

the impact analyses of the various alternatives, which apply different levels of restrictions. The projected 

lost energy reserves for the referenced restricted management areas are collectively reflected in the 

recovery estimate for each alternative. 

Please see Table 2-27 on pages 2-165 and 2-166 of the draft EIS, which describe avoidance and exclusion 

areas per alternative in greater detail. An adequate range of alternatives is provided for analysis purposes. 

Alternatives 2 and 4 are less restrictive than Alternative 3 and all provide for looking at exclusion areas 

on a case-by-case basis if impacts could be adequately mitigated. All valid existing rights will be honored.

Comment: The document has a poorly developed geological hazards section. Landslides are mentioned, 

but no further information is provided. The Wyoming State Geological Survey readily has available map 

coverage of existing and potential landslides for the entire state. Seismic hazards are poorly addressed. 

A27-238 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

The entire resource area is lumped into a “very high” seismic hazard zone which is incorrect. Once again, 

the Survey has seismic hazard maps available as does the USGS. 

Oil and gas well casing and cementing requirements for the protection of groundwater quality is not 

addressed. It is mentioned in Chapter 2, where reference is made to Appendices 2 & 5; but, those 

appendices do not address the issue. Also stated in Chapter 2 is the following quote: “Criteria for 

determining depth of fresh water are found in Appendices 2 and 5.” No information on this topic was 

found in either appendix. Recent news reports point to hydrocarbon contamination of water wells in the 

Pinedale and Jonah Field areas; and, oil and gas wells will be an obvious possible source of this 

contamination. 

Impacts to surface owners (private and state) of mineral leasing on the 287,400 acres of nonfederal 

lands/federal minerals in the resource area appear to be poorly addressed. This split estate issue is of great 

concern. It should be addressed whether or not it falls within the realm of RMP decisions

Response: The Geologic Hazard Section of Chapter 3 has been revised in the final EIS to incorporate 

more complete geologic hazard data from Wyoming State Geological Survey databases. 

BLM does require operators to use fresh water drilling techniques to drill through all known fresh water 

aquifers encountered. BLM also requires operators to set surface casing through the fresh water zones and 

then cement the backside of the surface casing from the total depth of the casing back to the surface to 

seal the aquifers for the well bore. The following item is being added under the Appendix 5 heading 

“Reducing Impacts From Fluid Mineral Construction, Operation, and Reclamation”: Set and cement 

surface casings to sufficient depths to protect fresh-water–bearing zones. 

The referenced text on page 2-35 of the draft EIS has been changed in the final EIS. A discussion of 

impacts to private landowners of leasing split estate lands has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: I believe that the resources can be developed and the environment protected in the Upper 

Green River Valley by implementing a resource management plan that: 

• Paces development, including not allowing new major gas fields to be developed until 

development in existing and expanding fields has been completed; 

• Preserves and enforces seasonal drilling stipulations that protect wildlife, and strengthen those 

shown to be deficient (especially greater buffer distance around sage grouse leks); 

• Withdraws important wildlife and scenic areas from future oil and gas leasing availability, 

including all of the Wind River Front and greater Trapper’s Point area, the Ryegrass/ Cottonwood 

area, the Fontenelle elk winter range, and the upper Green area north of Warren Bridge; 

• Mandates the clustering of new infrastructure and the use of directional drilling to minimize 

industry’s footprint on the ground; 

• Removes loopholes that allow areas designated for minimal development to become intensively 

developed and allow surface drilling in No Surface Occupancy (NSO) areas; 

• Requires use of the cleanest technologies and environmentally protective practices.

Response: Development rates and infrastructure scenarios are project-level issues that can be addressed 

through project-level EISs. Seasonal restrictions are already designed to minimize impacts to the target 

species during crucial life-cycle periods. Permanently setting areas aside from leasing or development is 

beyond the authority of this RMP. Such “permanent” set-asides/withdrawals require congressional 

Pinedale RMP A27-239 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

approval. It is not possible to cluster development until exploration has confirmed the characteristics and 

extent of the underground resource. The projected boundaries of proposed “Intensively Developed Field” 

areas is based on our current level of knowledge where high intensity development, in terms of numbers 

of wells and surface spacing, is occurring or is anticipated to occur. The boundaries are designed to allow 

intense development within the area, but allow for the maximum level of surface resource protection 

outside the area. As new delineation wells are developed to define and/or refine the productive limits of 

the existing fields, or as exploratory wells are developed in areas outside the existing field, it may become 

necessary to expand the “Intensively Developed” areas. The conversion criterion provides the mechanism 

to accomplish this in a methodical and systematic manner.

Comment: Page 4-77 Table 4-10, Acres Available for Conventional Oil and Gas Development under Alt. 

4 Development potential Alt 1 Alt 4 %change 

• Very High 34,760 34,760 0 

• High 98,120 103,260 5 

• Moderate 481,970 493,530 2 

• Low 421,910 404,000 4 

• No Potential 0 0 0 

• Total 1,036,760 1,035,550

Comment–BLM has failed to disclose how many lease acres and producing wells exist within each of 

these development potentials. Specifically, it is unknown how many acres in each category are NOT 

available under each of the alternatives. The acreage under Alternative 4 totals 1,03,5550 while the 

acreage available under the 4 oil and gas management areas totals 1,219,254 acres. This discrepancy must 

be rectified. 

Page 4-113 “Under continuation of current management (alternative 1), the pace of gas development and 

production is expected to include a 183% increase in the number of wells between 2006 and 2020. Page 

4-127 Under Alternative 4, the pace of gas development and production would be expected to be very 

similar to the current management situation, with a 181% increase in the number of well between 2006 

and 2020 8383 wells in 2020; 85% of those wells are assumed to be federal wells. Estimates are for an 

average of 372 wells to be drilled a year through 2020 (317 federal and 55 state/private” Comment: 317 

wells per year for 20 years equals 6,340 wells; substantially less than the federal well 7,136 RFD figure. 

Page 4-244 “Surface use restrictions, such as timing restrictions, could also cause an operator to move to 

nearby private or state land with no such restrictions, and drill a well that could result in drainage of 

federal reserves and a loss of federal revenue.” Comment: BLM has failed to consider those activities or 

development that would be deferred or forgone due to the extra costs associated with directional drilling, 

seasonal closures, and other mitigation requirements. Page 4-250 “The implementation of BLM’s 

mitigation guidelines, restrictions on surface use, continued implementation of healthy rangeland 

standards, and monitoring efforts would provide protection to soils on federal lands and lands with federal 

subsurface minerals, which would help reduce cumulative effects.” Comment: The relationship of the oil 

and gas BMPs, operating standards, and oil and gas mitigation guidelines to the healthy rangeland 

standards is unclear and must be explained. 

Response: The number of acres of leased land within each area having hydrocarbon potential has been 

added to Chapter 3 of the final EIS. The number of acres of land that are unavailable for leasing within 

each area having hydrocarbon potential are shown in Tables 2-32 and 2-33 of the draft EIS. The RFD 

does consider those activities or development that would be deferred or forgone due to the extra costs 

associated with directional drilling, seasonal closures, and other mitigation requirements,, which accounts 

for the RFD differences between the alternatives. The relationship between BMPs, mitigation guidelines, 

A27-240 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

restrictions on surface use, and rangeland health standards on page 4-250 of the draft EIS involves each 

having components or criteria that would reduce impacts to the soils resource. The statement does not 

intend to compare these components to each other, but rather to show that collectively they would reduce 

the cumulative impacts to soils. Please note that BMPs and mitigation guidelines are not exclusive to oil 

and gas development, but are applicable to all surface-disturbing activities.

No Surface Occupancy (NSO), Wildlife Habitat, Seasonal Stipulations 

Comment: We understand that No Surface Occupancy is no protection, since pipelines and roads are 

allowed on NSO land for extraction of minerals on private and state lands.

Response: Pipelines and roads would be allowed for access to private and state lands no matter the 

classification of BLM lands. BLM is required to provide reasonable access to state and privately owned 

lands.

Comment: Much of the above area is classified as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) leasing category. We 

are not confident that this completely protects the surface. The RMP allows it to become available for 

surface occupancy for a number of circumstances. Most of these circumstances are concerned with 

mineral extraction and not land protection.

Response: The areas unavailable for leasing have been revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: Furthermore, it appears that the majority of all areas are already leased thus almost any area 

could potentially move into the intensively developed category at any time, jeopardizing protection of 

wildlife populations and habitats that had previously been nominally afforded. This problem extends to 

the “large block NSO areas” because narrative on page 4-210 indicates that “conflicts could arise if these 

areas are determined to have oil or gas drainage issues” and essentially the NSO area designation would 

be compromised for energy development. NSO designation does not apply to areas within the “large 

block” designation that have already been leased. Page 2-147 specifically states that in large block NSO 

areas the “restriction does not violate the leaseholder’s/operator’s lease rights.” The document needs to 

specify just how much of these large block areas are currently leased. If the vast majority of the planning 

area is already leased, the specified designations seem to be of little conservation value. If restrictions will 

apply that effectively protect resources in NSO areas despite the area having been leased, those 

restrictions should be carefully and clearly explained. 

Response: More information about the current leasing status of the unavailable and NSO areas, and how 

those leases would be managed, has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: Furthermore, the level of BLM’s retained authority, rights and obligations and BLM’s 

willingness to exercise those rights should be fully explained if there is to be any assurance of (and claims 

of) protection of wildlife resources in these NSO areas. Certainly if the BLM can retain the NSO 

designation on the large block areas as leases expire or are retired, wildlife populations will benefit.

Response: Establishing and managing Large Block NSOs is certainly within BLM’s authority. Placing 

the NSO objective/management opportunity in the RMP, in and of itself, is a statement of BLM’s 

willingness to exercise its authority. Purchasers of NSO leases would do so knowing that they would not 

be able to occupy the surface to develop wells. NSO designation would apply to new oil and gas leases 

issued on any and all federal lands and mineral estates (regardless of surface ownership) within the 

respective unavailable or NSO boundary. The NSO designation does not apply to any existing leases (i.e., 

leases issued prior to the completion of this RMP) that occur within the NSO areas. The issuance of an oil 

and gas lease gives the leaseholder certain rights. It does not, however, give them the right to violate or 

abrogate any conditions, such as an NSO, under which they purchased the lease.

Pinedale RMP A27-241 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: “Large Block NSO Areas” would be available for leasing, but subject to a NSO stipulation. 2- 

48, 2-121. Existing leases would be managed under existing lease terms and stipulations. Id. That said, it 

appears-but is not absolutely certain; this should be clarified-that existing leases would be subject to 

somewhat intensive regulation and management, including efforts to protect wildlife habitat, require best 

management practices (BMP), and the imposition of needed conditions of approval (COA). 2-121. 

Moreover, the NSO stipulation applicable to new leases in these areas unfortunately is far from absolute; 

the NSO stipulation could be “lifted” if operators propose such and if it appears drainage of federal oil 

and gas is occurring. 2-48, 2-121. Furthermore, these lands could be converted to Intensively Developed 

Fields if the above-mentioned 160-acre per well bottom-hole spacing is reached. Id. 

Response: The areas available for oil and gas leasing, and subject to NSO stipulations, have been revised 

in the final EIS. 

Comment: Item: Page 2-47, Section 2.5.2, Oil and Gas Management Areas for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

“Emphasis in these areas would be on providing contiguous wildlife habitat, wildlife refuge areas and 

migration routes, public land recreation opportunities, opportunities for appropriate non-surface 

disturbing activities, and maintenance and improvement of current resource conditions while allowing 

leasing of the areas for oil and gas production. New oil and gas leases in these areas would be 

encumbered by NSO stipulations. Oil and gas operators would have the right to explore existing leases. 

Previously existing leases could be occupied on the surface unless the existing lease carries an NSO 

stipulation.” Comment: How much of this NSO area is currently leased without NSO stipulations? If 

development is proposed, environmental documentation would be prepared to analyze impacts and to 

determine operating methods, mitigation, and BMPs to be used in further development of the field. But, 

would the emphasis in the area remain on non-surface disturbing activities or shift to efficient and 

complete development of oil and gas? Is this an area where BLM would REQUIRE offsite mitigation?

Response: BLM does not have the authority to require offsite mitigation. Information on how much of 

the NSO and unavailable areas are currently leased, and how many wells have been developed in these 

areas, has been added to the final EIS. For areas with existing oil and gas leases, management emphasis 

on the leased areas could change based on results of drilling and information gained about any subsurface 

energy resource that may be present. The RMP provides guidance for changes in management emphasis 

in areas previously leased, if a discovery is made.

Comment: Page 2-180 Alternative 4, conventional gas potential. Comment: BLM fails to discuss how 

many leases or producing wells currently exist in the newly proposed NSO areas and whether any or all 

currently have NSO stipulations. In comparing page 4-77 with page 2-180, 34,760 acres are shown as 

having very high gas potential whereas only 6,520 acres are shown in the table on page 2-180. Does this 

mean that the remaining 28,240 acres are available for leasing with standard lease terms? Additionally, of 

the 103,260 acres of high gas potential, 34,890 acres appear leaseable with standard terms and conditions. 

It also appears that little, if any, of the land classified as moderate potential would be available without 

special restrictions. 

CHAPTER 3 Page 3-37 The planning area contains approximately 1,199,280 acres of federal mineral 

estate underlying 922,880 acres of federally owned surface and 276,400 acres of private and state lands. 

Based on the Mineral Report for the planning area, 287,230 acres were nominated and offered for lease 

between 1996 and 2001. As of June 2004, approximately 1,174 BLM-administered federal oil and gas 

leases covered 734,020 acres, or approximately 61% of the federal mineral estate in the planning area.

Response: Information on existing leases and producing wells in the unavailable for leasing areas has 

been added to the final EIS. The Large Block NSO areas have been eliminated in the proposed RMP. 

Page 4-77 of the draft EIS discusses acres available for leasing; page 2-180 discusses acres unavailable or 

A27-242 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

NSO. The comparisons made between these two tables are not appropriate. Because of overlap of areas 

with seasonal limitations with other restrictions, the areas are not additive (see footnote 5 on page 2-182 

of the draft EIS). 

Comment: APC has reservations regarding the proposed Large Block NSO Areas under Alternative 4, 

and objects to the significant acreage withdrawn from oil and gas leasing under Alternatives 3 and 4. As 

the BLM is aware, the lands within the Pinedale Resource Area have significant potential for oil and gas 

development. See RMP DEIS Map 4-1 and 4-2. Isolated leases will not be developed; responsible 

operators will only drill in unproven areas after assembling a significant leasehold position. The BLM has 

previously recognized this need for control of a reasonable acreage block. See Prima Oil & Gas Co., 148 

IBLA 45, 51 (1999) (BLM policy to suspend leases when “a lessee is unable to explore, develop, and 

produce leases due to the proximity, or commingling of other adjacent Federal lands needed for logical 

exploration and development that are currently not available for leasing”). The BLM decision to close 

significant portions of the planning area to leasing, or to make significant portions only available with 

NSO stipulations, will have major impacts upon future exploration and development in the area. The 

BLM has not adequately studied and disclosed the negative impacts this decision will have upon the 

nation’s domestic energy supply or disclosed the impacts this management approach may have upon the 

local and regional economies. Further, given the substantial amount of acreage the BLM is withdrawing 

from oil and gas development, the BLM is required to comply with the withdrawal procedures outlined in 

FLPMA. See 43 U.S.C. §§ 1702(j), 1714 (2006); 43 C.F.R. § 1610.6 (2006). There is no indication in the 

DEIS that the BLM has or intends to comply with the mandatory notification procedures outlined in 

FLPMA. In order to prevent unnecessary litigation or protests to the Director of the BLM, the Pinedale 

Field Office must comply with the appropriate withdrawal procedures.

Response: The areas available for oil and gas leasing and subject to NSO restrictions have been revised 

in the final EIS. 

Comment: Strengthen seasonal drilling restrictions;

Response: Seasonal restrictions are already designed to minimize impacts to the target species during 

crucial life-cycle periods.

Comment: I’m very concerned about the BLM’s proposed oil and gas development in the upper Green 

River valley. My first concern is that this is bad energy policy: in 2007 we should be shunning fossil fuels 

like the plague. However, I should probably be addressing that concern to some other department. My 

second concern is that this region is an important N-S wildlife corridor, and, like all dry areas, the land is 

very fragile. I have spent time in the upper Green River valley, and would hate to see a short-sighted 

energy policy doing long-lasting damage to this delicate and beautiful environment. 

Response: The alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, provide for protection of important 

wildlife migration corridors, and particularly at bottlenecks along those corridors.

Comment: The conditions of approval for development plans that are completed or in the final planning 

stages must be supported in the FEIS and eventual ROD. For example, adequate mitigation for the 

Pinedale SEIS, which is in the final stage of planning, call for BLM to allow currently unleased areas 

adjacent to the Pinedale Anticline Planning Area to remain unleased until the Anticline crest is developed 

and again functional for wildlife. To accomplish this, the RMP must designate those unleased areas as 

Unavailable for Leasing until the wildlife function returns. Similarly, assurances of unleased areas 

adjacent to the other Intensively Developed Fields in the Field Office Area remaining unleased will 

almost certainly be needed for mitigation of these fields. We recommend that key habitats (crucial winter 

Pinedale RMP A27-243 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

ranges, sage grouse seasonal habitats, specific sensitive species habitats) adjacent to those areas also be 

designated as Unavailable for Leasing.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to address the unleased areas within and adjacent to the 

PAPA.

Comment: Objective 8 discusses making other leaseable minerals available for exploration and 

development if they don’t conflict and impact already limited available important habitat areas. If off-site 

mitigation areas include these lands that have other leaseable mineral it places wildlife in jeopardy once 

again. These sites, if identified as off-site mitigation areas, truly need to stay development-free.

Response: Other than oil and gas leases, there are currently no leases for mineral development in the 

planning area. Based on the Pinedale Mineral Occurrence and Development Report, the potential for 

development of other “leasable” minerals is very low. Additional NEPA analysis and possibly an RMP 

Amendment would be required before such leases would be issued.

Comment: Page 4-209, paragraph 2, discusses “allocating some forage increases to wildlife” and the 

establishment of “forage reserves” to mitigate the impact of livestock grazing on wildlife. We find no 

discussion of the reduction of AUM’s anticipated from this re-allocation of forage and suggest that such 

an analysis be conducted. We also request a map that shows where these “forage reserves” would be 

located. Paragraph 6 states that “These estimates are close to those projected for Alternative 2, which 

infers that a high commodity extraction could be attained without removing necessary stipulations and 

COAs important for the perpetuation of wildlife resources.” In the alternative, the removal of certain 

stipulations and COA’s in Alternative 4 will allow a high level of extraction in the most time efficient 

manner (year round drilling from multi-well pads) rather than extending the development period, possibly 

resulting in a greater level of species disturbance and displacement. The condensed timeframes provided 

by Alternative 4 allows the area to settle into the relative quiet of the production phase more quickly, 

resulting in a benefit to wildlife. Paragraphs 7 and 8 attempt to compare and contrast the impacts of 

intensive and minimal development. The inference is that intensive development will provided no 

protection for sage grouse or big game during sensitive periods, when in fact Alternative 4 provides 

protections for these species “to the extent practicable”. We agree that the Intensively Developed Fields 

scenario will have a greater impact on wildlife when compared to the Minimally Developed Area 

scenario.

Response: The RMP does not establish specific “forage reserves”, but does set the framework for them 

— see action item k on page 2-119 of the draft EIS. Because no specific reserves are established, a map 

depicting them cannot be generated. The comparison of Alternatives 2 and 4, in terms of the total number 

of wells projected for each, is appropriate based on their comparative similarity. The referenced statement 

is intended to show that Alternative 4 would attain nearly the same number of wells while retaining more 

mitigation to protect wildlife. Concerning your observations on paragraphs 7 and 8 of page 4-209 of the 

draft EIS, BLM concurs.

Comment: Page 2-143 Unavailable Areas would be managed for protection of wildlife habitats through 

indefinite postponement of the availability of lands for oil and gas leasing. Comment: Indefinite 

postponement of leasing is an unacceptable management approach and is inconsistent with the provisions 

of BLM national energy policy (chapter 1, page 15) which states, “Public lands shall remain open and 

available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative actions are 

clearly justified in the national interest.” Page 2-148 “Leases that are currently encumbered by seasonal 

restrictions would be subject to additional environmental analysis to decide whether exceptions should be 

made for new construction. For minimally developed fields, no exceptions to seasonal restrictions for 

A27-244 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

exploration would be permitted. Comment: BLM needs to describe what types of exceptions will be 

considered once an area goes into intensively developed status. 

Page 2-155 states under “e. Geophysical operations on BLM-administered surface in the Wind River 

Front Management Area would be restricted to designated roads and trails or to non-vehicle-based 

methods.” Comment: Since ATV’s, due to their very design, do not cause any appreciable disturbance or 

damage, they should never be considered as vehicles subject to any the above limitations. The following 

clause should be included after the existing sentence in (e.), stating, “ATV operation is considered a 

casual use activity and therefore considered a non-vehicle based method in this RMP.” 

Response: It is in the national interest to provide for the continuation of surface resources such as wildlife 

habitats. Management of Intensively Feveloped Fields is described elsewhere in this section and would be 

refined at the field development EIS stage.

Comment: The latter quote regarding bird netting is so absurd on another level that it can only be 

described as stupid. First, netting by definition implies passage of the suns rays, including heat unless its 

mesh density is so high as to be opaque. Such density is unnecessary to be effective as a bird deterrent. 

Thus pit evaporation need not be substantially impacted. Second, migratory birds are absent in winter 

when the cited snow loading problem is invoked. Third, snow flakes in our region are not so large as to 

accumulate on the mesh with high weight IF the mesh is large enough, but conceding that point, snow 

events here are rarely unaccompanied by high winds to clear the netting. Even con-ceding that point, 

operators WILL find a solution if it is necessary to their continuation of business....and that necessity is 

sorely lacking as a requirement in any of the alternatives discussed.

Response: Netting would need to be of tight enough weave to prevent entry of all sizes of birds, which 

would increase the shading effect on fluids in the reserve pits. Greenhouses frequently use netting to 

provide shade while allowing airflow. Netting used on reserve pits on the Pinedale Anticline in 2000–

2002 did, in fact, retain snow accumulations that caused the netting to sink into the pit fluids.

Comment: I have a concern about some of the recommendations in the Pinedale RMP. In a general 

sense, I believe the RMP is too site-specific in the area of land designation specifically in the No Surface 

Occupancy recommendations for Sage Grouse. The BLM is suggesting an increase in land protection for 

Sage Grouse where the NSO would grow from 1/4 mile to anywhere from 3 to 4 miles. What is the 

justification for such a large increase? Are such land use decisions appropriate in an RMP/ Would it be 

better to review these decision more on a project by project basis? Does science support the NSO 

designations and has the science been peer review? How much gas production will be lost with expanded 

NSO stipulation and what are the socioeconomic ramifications?

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to present a reasonable range of alternatives and make 

projections of the impacts associated with each alternative. Accordingly, the document addresses varying 

levels of oil and gas leasing and development, as well as varying levels of surface resource protection. 

Chapter 4 of the draft EIS addresses the anticipated impacts, including socio-impacts, of both the oil and 

gas development and the resource protection scenarios. Leasing and development would continue to occur 

in the planning area under each of the alternatives. The recovery estimate for each alternative collectively 

reflects the projected lost energy reserves for the referenced restricted management areas, including the 

NSOs. There is only one alternative that analyzes changing the NSO area from 1⁄4 mile to 3 miles. This is 

a very appropriate land use decision, which rigorous statistical analysis supports, and, if chosen, would be 

applied throughout the field office for surface-disturbing activities.

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-66: “In addition, a NSO restriction would be applied to all suitable 

nesting habitat within 3 miles of active leks (Table 4-3, p. 4-57). This would directly impact fluid mineral 

Pinedale RMP A27-245 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

development on 506,530 acres. Fluid mineral development would require offsite methods, and resources 

beyond the technical and economic capabilities of the offsite method would become unavailable for 

public use. If the entire 3-mile zone is suitable nesting habitat, this restriction would definitely come to 

impact hydrocarbon recovery. Existing leases within the NSO area could be developed under the lease 

terms. The hydrocarbon development potential within 3 miles of the leks varies from low to high for both 

CBNG and non-CBNG development, with less than 1% in areas with very high hydrocarbon potential and 

6% in areas of high hydrocarbon potential. The remaining 93% of the 3-mile NSO restriction is within 

areas of moderate to low potential for hydrocarbon. Surface disturbance and disruptive activities would be 

prohibited within 3 miles of active leks from March 15 through July 15. This would potentially prohibit 

well completion and well maintenance actions on existing wells within 3 miles of those active leks during 

the restriction period. This would prolong the time to fully develop a field, which in turn would prolong 

the period that development operations occupy wildlife habitats. The impacts from prohibiting surface 

disturbance on all greater sage-grouse winter concentration habitat; from limiting well pad development 

to one well pad per section in greater sage-grouse habitat; and from allowing NSO on crucial big game 

winter range habitat, within big game migration routes and bottlenecks, or within 825 feet of active raptor 

nests (1,000 feet for ferruginous hawks), would directly affect oil and gas leasing and development. 

As stated previously, fluid mineral development in these NSO areas would require offsite methods, and 

resources beyond the technical and economic capabilities of the offsite method would become unavailable 

for public use. Existing leases within the NSO area could be developed under the lease terms. The impact 

of the one-pad-per-section restriction on oil and gas development could be lessened by implementing 

exceptions to meet WOGCC spacing requirements. The hydrocarbon development potential of these NSO 

areas varies from low to high for both CBNG and non-CBNG development.” Recommendations: Provide 

scientific, peer reviewed justification for restrictions. Quantify the amount of oil and gas reserves that 

would be unrecoverable by increasing the size of the NSO from the current 1/ mile restriction to a 3 mile 

NSO. 

Response: The draft EIS presents four alternatives that range from strong commodity production to 

strong environmental protection. The plan does take the nation’s energy needs into account, but also takes 

the other resources values within the planning area into consideration, as required by numerous laws and 

regulations. Alternative 2 purposely addresses enhanced commodity production, whereas Alternative 3 

purposely addresses enhanced surface resource protection. This was done to meet the NEPA requirement 

to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. The reference text applies to Alternative 3, the 

environmental protection alternative. As such, it is reasonable to address stronger restrictions to protect 

wildlife resources. The 3-mile lek buffer is derived from Clait Braun’s “Blue Print for Sage-grouse 

Conservation and Recovery”. The recovery estimate for each alternative collectively reflects projected 

lost energy reserves for the referenced restricted management areas.

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-73: “The impacts related to fluid gathering systems and migratory 

bird exclusion devices for pits would be the same as under Alternative 3.” Recommendations: Explain 

and cite source or delete.

Response: The management prescribed in Alternatives 3 and 4 pertaining to fluid gathering systems and 

migratory bird exclusion devises for pits are the same. The impact analysis in Chapter 4 addresses the 

anticipated impacts of these prescribed measures. Because the measure would be the same in both 

alternatives, it is completely appropriate that the Alternative 4 impact section reference the Alternative 3 

impact discussion. 

Comment: More important, even though BLM states that Large Block NSO areas would be available for 

leasing with NSO stipulations, the agency will likely ) implement the more conservative oil and gas 

leasing policy (i.e., Large Block NSO areas would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing). Implementing 

A27-246 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

this more conservative oil and gas leasing policy will restrict the development of new and improved 

extraction technology and thus prevent the discovery of much needed additional resources. The BLM 

should consider sensitive areas on a case-by-case basis and remove all express and implied statements 

indication that Large Block NSO areas would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing.

Response: If BLM adopts an RMP alternative that makes certain lands available for leasing subject to an 

NSO restriction (whether large-block or site-specific) those lands would then in fact be available for 

leasing. Potential lease purchasers need to be fully aware that they will not be able to occupy the surface 

within an NSO area. The draft EIS/RMP does consider certain NSOs, such as elk feedgrounds, on a sitespecific (case-by-case) basis and others, such as the Large Block NSO, on a broader scale. In both cases, 

the restrictions would be imposed to protect surface resource values. The areas available for oil and gas 

leasing, and subject to NSO restrictions, have been revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: Page 4-70, 3rd Paragraph Comment: States that “about 205,100 acres would be designated as 

Large Block NSO Areas”. An NSO area is defined as a “Land use allocation or approval restriction used 

when surface disturbance cannot be mitigated and must be prohibited” (page G-14). Most sections of the 

RMP state that any resource to be retrieved from an NSO area would be accomplished by directional 

drilling. Page 2-121 states that “c. The NSO stipulation could be lifted in specific areas if proposed by 

operators and under the following circumstances: 5. Off-setting wells could be developed directionally 

from federal lands adjoining the NSO area, if the directional wells would be economically feasible. If a 

directional well is not economic, but a vertical well would be, the NSO would be relaxed, but only on 

sufficient area to allow off-setting well(s) to be developed.” 

The wording is specific in that it states “the NSO WOULD be relaxed.” This is not stated anywhere else 

in the document. Everywhere else in the document it is stated that only directional drilling would be used 

to recover any resource from an NSO area and that any resource beyond the capabilities of directional 

drilling would be unrecoverable. It is not feasible, in the exploration phase of development, to drill 

directional wells. The BLM must be clear on this point and allow Operators to drill vertical wells during 

the exploration phase of development on NSO areas.

Response: The language on page 2-121 of the draft EIS, item c, is solely intended to address the drainage 

of federal minerals within the NSO areas through non-federal wells. Language in the final EIS has been 

changed to drop “if proposed by operators” and now reads: “The NSO stipulation could be lifted to off-set 

the drainage of federal minerals in specific areas under the following circumstances:”.

Comment: Page 4-73, Last Paragraph Comment: States that large areas of contiguous sagebrush would 

be protected, creating a virtual NSO area in a Minimally Developed Area and the impacts would be the 

same as those described for the 1-mile NSO restriction in the Minimally Developed Areas under 

Alternative 3 (page 4-65). The wording on page 4-65 is clear that the NSO restriction is from 3/1 through 

5/15, but the wording here is confusing It needs to be defined as to how long the NSO restriction would 

be in place.

Response: The sage-grouse NSO is a year-round surface disturbance restriction within 1⁄4 mile of an 

occupied lek, and vehicular activity is restricted to existing roads and trails within a 1-mile radius of 

occupied leks from March 1 to May 15. All other NSOs are also year-round surface disturbance 

prohibition areas. 

Comment: EOG has concerns regarding the creation of the Large Block NSO Areas under Alternative 4, 

and the significant portions of the planning area made unavailable for future oil and gas leasing under 

Alternatives 3 and 4. As indicated on Maps 4-1 and 4-2 and Appendix 10, the lands within the Pinedale 

Resource Area have significant potential for oil and gas development, including coalbed natural gas 

Pinedale RMP A27-247 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

development. Although the BLM suggests existing oil and gas leases in these areas may be developed, 

pgs. 2-82, 2-121 - 122, it will be virtually impossible, and not economically viable to develop isolated 

leases. Any responsible oil and gas producer who decides to take the risk of exploring a wildcat area must 

do so only after assembling a large enough block of leasehold acreage so that, if the drilling is successful, 

it can obtain an adequate return on the high risk dollars invested. The BLM has, in other contexts, 

recognized this need for control of a reasonable acreage block. See Prima Oil & Gas Co., 148 IBLA 45, 

51 (1999) (BLM policy to suspend leases when “a lessee is unable to explore, develop, and produce 

leases due to the proximity, or commingling of other adjacent Federal lands needed for logical exploration 

and development that are currently not available for leasing”). The BLM must recognize, study, and 

report the economic impact its decision to close significant portions of the planning area to leasing, or to 

make significant portions only available with NSO stipulations, will have upon future exploration and 

development in the area. The BLM must also study and disclose the negative impacts this decision will 

have upon the nation’s domestic energy supply. The BLM’s decision may deprive lessees, the local 

communities, the State of Wyoming, and the federal government the economic benefits of oil and gas 

development. 

Response: The RFD and the socioeconomic analysis in the draft EIS did consider the impacts of Large 

Block NSO. The areas available for oil and gas leasing, and subject to NSO stipulations, have been 

revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: By limiting wellpad densities to only one well per 640-acre section, the BLM would 

significantly reduce oil and gas development across the planning area. Economic and technical limitations 

associated with directional drilling could effectively eliminate oil and gas development in large areas of 

the Pinedale Resource Area. Further, directional drilling activities are often unfeasible during initial 

exploration activities. If imposed, this mandate is effectively the same as a NSO restriction which will 

reduce exploration activities.

Response: Alternative 3 is designed to analyze more strict surface resource protection/enhancement 

measures. The restriction also carries the caveat that exceptions could be made to comply with Wyoming 

Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) spacing rulings. The following changes has been made 

to this restriction: “To minimize fragmentation of sage-grouse habitats, well pad densities would be 

limited to one pad per 640-acre section, or one per section for sections smaller than 640 acres, one per 

lease if the lease is smaller than 640 acres, or one per detached lease parcel segment if the segment is 

smaller than 640 acres, Exceptions could be granted to comply with WOGCC spacing requirements. This 

restriction would not be applied to sections, partial sections, leases, or detached lease segments that 

already contain one or more than one existing well. 

Comment: The NSO mitigation guideline is likewise problematic. We are not even certain what the 

intent is with regard to this guideline. Is this a tool for mitigation above and beyond NSO stipulations 

placed on lands at the planning stage? Or is it only a tool for removal of NSO stipulations under the 

RMP? This guideline needs reworking so that its intent is clear and the process for implementing the 

guideline is clearly defined.

Response: Refer to paragraph 1 in Appendix 3 of the draft EIS for the intent and purpose of the 

mitigation guidelines. Additional clarification is not needed.

Comment: PAGE: 4-72, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE if withdrawn; 

otherwise delete: [Large Block NSO Areas would be available for fluid mineral leasing with an NSO 

stipulation. Management of existing leases within the Large Block NSO Area would be governed by the 

stipulations on those existing leases. Postlease actions would be subject to mitigation prescribed by sitespecific NEPA analysis and by the mitigation prescribed by this RMP, provided that neither the NEPA 

A27-248 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

nor RMP mitigation violate the leaseholder/operator’s lease rights. The management prescriptions for 

Large Block NSO Areas applicable to Alternative 4 and as listed in Chapter 2, are essentially the same as 

those prescribed for the Minimally Developed Areas discussed above; consequently, the impacts would 

be the same. The impacts would essentially be the same as those described for NSO areas throughout the 

preceding discussion. Areas beyond the economic and technical capabilities of offsite development 

techniques would become unavailable for public use] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: See Comment 

Ch. 2-#85; Large block NSO is a withdrawal. BLM must withdraw these blocks or allow leasing. Also 

unlawfully limits rights of access to private minerals. See Comment Ch. 2-#153 Opinion of the Solicitor, 

Legal Responsibilities of BLM for Oil and Gas Leasing and Operations on Split Estate Lands (April 

1988) (concluding that BLM ownership of mineral estate does not permit limits on privately-owned 

surface).

Response: BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP.

Comment: Minerals: Options available to mitigate potential impacts of oil and gas leasing are listed in 

appendix 7, page A7-1 last 3 lines. The No Surface Occupancy stipulation does not mean what it says. 

You cannot rent a home to someone and not let them live in it and you cannot lease acreage for oil and 

gas development and not let them enter onto the area and drill for hydrocarbons if the lessee so chooses. 

Appendix 7 gives the true insight to the game plan. If the area cannot be protected by normal mitigation 

measures the NSO stipulation would be applied. If it cannot be protected by NSO and not reachable by 

normal drilling measures is within 1/2 mile of a drilling site, it should not be leased. In table 2-32, page 2-

179 it states that in the large block NSO areas that there are 202,580 acres with moderate hydrocarbon 

potential, 354,570 acres with low potential and 48,340 acres with no potential. If the resource values are 

great enough that a block NSO lease stipulation is required to adequately mitigate the impacts on the 

ground and the area has low potential for hydrocarbons, then why lease it at all? As you can see from the 

Mesa oil and gas can quickly become the dominant use which precludes even seasonal conditions for 

ungulates and grouse. Options on the lease include the option of not allowing development of “the entire 

lease acreage”. Since the agreed upon directional limits that are economical on the Mesa is about 1/2 mile 

this means that you would have to have a lease one mile square with the ability to set up immediately 

adjacent to that acreage on someone else’s surface where split estate is leased (most of the area north of T 

33 N.) or within the existing lease. The disturbance has to be moved elsewhere in order to enjoy that lease 

but in all probability it will be somewhere on the lease acreage. 

Response: Your comments were considered in the development of the Proposed RMP final EIS.

Comment: The “No Surface Occupancy” (NSO) designation for the northern portion of the Wind River 

Front and far Upper Green River Valley was I’m sure intended to fool people into believing that BLM is 

interested in conserving that area. At first glance, that may be what it looks like, but this is entirely untrue. 

In BLM’s proposal, this designation applies to basically everything north of Pinedale. These areas have 

been under a minerals leasing moratorium for the last several years for good reason. The NSO designation 

the BLM proposes only prevents surface occupancy on BLM owned surface rights. However, as I was 

told by BLM, they WILL lease mineral rights in these areas, regardless of who owns the surface. This 

simply means that drilling companies WILL be drilling for federal minerals on private property in this 

area. Once a lease is in place, it constitutes an irrevocable right to which drilling companies may use 

eminent domain or condemnation to gain access. One BLM official told me they couldn’t designate the 

area “OFF LIMITS” to drilling because there would be too much outcry from private property owners. 

This is utter nonsense. First of all, this plan has no jurisdiction over privately owned minerals. And 

second, no property owner I have ever met or heard of wants their property drilled for federally owned 

minerals. Instead of naming the area No Surface Occupancy or NSO, they might as well name it “this is 

where we will hurt private property owners the most”. This is to say nothing about the fact that the 

northern Wind River Front and far Upper Green River Valley is arguably the wildest, most remote and 

Pinedale RMP A27-249 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

most special area the plan encapsulates. It will be a travesty if any of the Wind River Front is allowed to 

be industrialized this way. The entire Wind River Front should be permanently off limits to drilling for 

federal minerals, no matter who owns the surface rights.

Response: Establishing Large Block NSOs is within BLM’s authority and does provide protection of 

surface resources. Lease purchasers would do so knowing that they would not be able to occupy the 

surface to develop wells. NSO designation would apply to new oil and gas leases issued on any and all 

federal lands and mineral estates (regardless of surface ownership) within the respective unavailable or 

NSO boundary. The NSO designation do not apply to any existing leases (i.e., leases issued prior to the 

completion of this RMP) that occur within the NSO areas. You are correct that the issuance of an oil and 

gas lease gives the leaseholder certain rights. It does not, however, give the leaseholder the right to violate 

or abrogate any conditions, such as an NSO, under which he/she purchased the lease. The leasing 

moratorium instituted in 1999 was intended to withhold the lands from leasing until the management of 

these lands and mineral estates could be evaluated through an updated land use plan. The moratorium 

was never intended to be more than a placeholder until the RMP was revised. The areas available for oil 

and gas leasing have been revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: The terms “moratorium”, “no surface occupancy”, and “unavailable for leasing” are each 

used in separate alternatives. How long does a moratorium last? Is it permanent? Does “no surface 

occupancy” provide complete protection to a residential lot? Why not designate residential properties 

“unavailable for leasing”?

Response: The moratorium was established through the Pinedale Anticline ROD in 2000 and is not 

permanent. Only the RMP can contain long-term decisions regarding oil and gas leasing. The unavailable 

and NSO designations would apply to new oil and gas leases issued on any and all federal lands and 

mineral estates (regardless of surface ownership) within the respective unavailable or NSO boundary. 

These designations do not apply to any existing leases (i.e., leases issued prior to the completion of this 

RMP) that occur within the unavailable or NSO areas. Many, but not all, residential properties would be 

unavailable for leasing in the Proposed RMP. The definitions of “moratorium” and “unavailable for 

leasing” have been included in the glossary of the final EIS. The definition of “NSO” is included in the 

draft EIS and final EIS.

Comment: We would like to see the upper Green River, upper New Fork and Hoback Rim areas 

designated as Unavailable for Leasing in your RMP. We are not confident that No Surface Occupancy 

will protect these areas. The RMP allows it to become available for surface occupancy for a number of 

circumstances. Most of these circumstances are concerned with the minerals and not the protection of the 

land. Maybe if the NSO designation were strengthened, it could be effective. 

Response: The areas available for oil and gas leasing have been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: 2. That in critical wildlife winter ranges, winter time activities in the gas fields be limited only 

to that minimum amount to keep existing facilities operational. This restriction would apply to future 

drilling activities as well.

Response: Seasonal restrictions do not protect wildlife habitats, because the activities postponed are 

carried out in the next non-crucial season. When development reaches a density or other point where 

animals no longer use the habitats, seasonal restrictions do not provide any value.

Comment: The DEIS states “arge Block NSO Areas would be managed for protection of wildlife habitats 

through offering oil and gas leases with NSO stipulations”and “luid mineral leasing would be allowed 

within the Large Block NSO Areas, provided the entire lease area was encumbered by a NSO 

A27-250 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

stipulation.” The Service suggests that the Bureau clarify how a lease could be developed if an entire 

“large block” area is designated as NSO.

Response: Leases issued within an NSO area would carry a stipulation prohibiting surface occupancy 

within the lease to drill for or extract the leased oil and gas resource. A leaseholder could potentially drill 

for and extract the leased resource from areas not constrained by the NSO stipulations. NSO lease 

purchasers would do so knowing that they would not be able to occupy the surface to develop wells. NSO 

designation would apply to new oil and gas leases issued on any and all federal lands and mineral estates 

(regardless of surface ownership) within the respective unavailable or NSO boundary. The NSO 

designation does not apply to any existing leases (i.e., leases issued prior to the completion of this RMP) 

that occur within the NSO areas. The issuance of an oil and gas lease gives the leaseholder certain rights. 

It does not, however, give him/her the right to violate or abrogate any conditions, such as an NSO, under 

which they purchased the lease. The areas available for oil and gas leasing have been revised in the final 

EIS. 

Comment: Impacts Under Alternative 3: As indicated above, the restrictions placed on oil and gas 

development under Alternative 3 are far too onerous and unreasonable. The increases in areas unavailable 

to leasing or only available with NSO or other restrictions, the increases in VRM Class II designations, 

and the various wildlife stipulations and requirements would significantly retard oil and gas development 

in the Pinedale Resource Area.

Response: BLM analyzed an appropriate range of alternatives in the draft EIS. It is reasonable to analyze 

an alternative that could limit future gas development.

Comment: •Employ a staged development approach for oil and gas development to permit ongoing 

assessment of risks and development of solutions. This approach, as opposed to opening all lands to 

leasing and development immediately, reduces the potential risk to wildlife while still allowing for the 

extraction of resources. (The Wilderness Society 2004). 

Response: None of the alternatives “open all lands to leasing and development immediately” or even 

over the life of the plan. Alternatives 3 and 4 address measures, such as making certain areas unavailable 

to leasing and leasing other areas with an NSO stipulation, which in essence limit or “stage” when or how 

oil and gas development occurs. 

Comment: While significant acreages are proposed for leasing with ostensible NSO stips under 

Alternative 4 (see DEIS Map 2-4), even more significant exception verbiage exists to allow Surface 

Occupancy in the No-Surface-Occupancy areas (DEIS p. 2-121) (including considerations such as 

mineral drainage which could more intelligently be addressed by unitization). Again, clarity, simplicity 

and honesty make for the best policy. I.e., if the parcels are suitable for development, they should be 

leased with appropriate stipulations. If they are not appropriate for development, you should not lease 

them. Related, leasing public minerals with NSO stipulations is a disservice to the public. This action will 

lead to one of the following: 1) the lessee wastes money (on a federal agency rip-off) and compensates by 

raising their commodity sales price to the public, or 2) the lessee pays money for the lease and determines 

to pay private attorneys to fight with publicly-paid attorney for SO rights, costing the public more on both 

ends (and wreaking more on-going stress upon the Field Office). Clearly neither of these general 

scenarios benefits the public or our natural resources which you steward. As with split estate, NSO leases 

proved inherently problematic when I worked for BLM twenty years ago, and they will forever be. Please 

remove proposal of NSO leases from all alternatives considered.

Response: You are correct that the issuance of an oil and gas lease gives the leaseholder certain rights. It 

does not, however, give him/her the right to violate or abrogate any conditions, such as an NSO, under 

Pinedale RMP A27-251 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

which he/she purchased the lease. The leasing moratorium instituted in 1999 was intended to withhold the 

lands from leasing until the management of these lands and mineral estates could be evaluated through an 

updated land use plan. It was never intended to be more than a placeholder until the RMP was revised. 

Concerning management of the Upper Green, the final EIS has been corrected, where appropriate, to 

reflect the correct well projection for federal wells. The areas available for oil and gas leasing have been 

revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: It is estimated that from 75,000 to 519,000 Bcf of potential natural gas underlying areas 

proposed in the DRMP as No Surface Occupancy (NSO). BLM fails to discuss how many leases currently 

exist on newly proposed NSO areas and how the new NSO designation would interact with existing 

leases. In order to place this significant restriction on development, the BLM should provide adequate 

justification or the restrictions should be deleted. 

Response: Information on existing leases in the oil and gas management areas has been added in the final 

EIS.

Comment: Under the Preferred Alternative, the statements in the document concerning areas along the 

Wind River Front that are being considered for no surface occupancy (NSO) and unavailable for leasing 

do not appear to be binding. I understand that management of public lands on the Wind River Front is 

complicated by private surface and subsurface ownership. However, it is my understanding that in the 

largest block of NSO designated area, there are already numerous leases. This designation does not 

exclude leaseholders from conducting exploration activities. Under existing regulations, if resources are 

found in the exploration process, leaseholders have the authority to develop minerals despite the NSO 

designation of the area. More assurances should be given to the state of Wyoming that these areas will 

remain undeveloped during the life of the RMP. In the alternative, if development is contemplated, it 

must be done in a manner that is fully consistent with the NSO stipulation.

Response: Information on existing leases in the oil and gas management areas has been added in the final 

EIS. In addition, further explanation of the method for allowing surface access in these areas has been 

provided, and the areas available for oil and gas leasing and subject to NSO stipulations have been 

revised. 

Comment: All alternatives presented in the Draft RMP are based on oil and gas development under 

different scenarios. A true conservation alternative would place equal value on wildlife, livestock, 

recreation, quality of human life and other resources and not place them in the back seat as all alternatives 

in this RMP do. For example, your wildlife and fish management objectives and actions are all grouped 

into: “intensively, minimally, NSO or unavailable areas” as relates to oil and gas development. The reader 

is led to believe that fish and wildlife are to be managed according to oil and gas industry guidelines. In 

other words, whatever is left after oil and gas development belongs to the native flora and fauna.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP provides a reasonable range of alternatives. Alternatives 3 and 4 have 

varying levels of acreage unavailable for oil and gas leasing and make other areas unavailable for surface 

disturbance for oil and gas development. Both of these scenarios are designed to provide increased 

protection for wildlife and other values in areas that are not currently affected by oil and gas development. 

The draft EIS/RMP does provide for multiple-use management on the planning area level.

Comment: If the BLM carries through their preferred Resources Management Plan proposed for the 

Upper Green River, Upper New Fork and Hoback Rim areas, it will be a disaster, for the following 

specific reasons: The abundant wildlife will suffer from disturbance of their habitats, feed grounds, 

corridors and birthing areas. Cattle ranching will lose productive grazing. “No Surface Occupancy” will 

not provide protection because pipelines and roads could be on NSO land, and industrial facilities and 

A27-252 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

activity anywhere in these areas can cause all of the destruction listed above. This seems to be the least 

acceptable time for oil and gas leasing in the Upper Green, Upper New Fork and Hoback Rim. Since the 

federal government has considered these areas valuable enough to place a moratorium on them, what has 

changed to make the lifting of this moratorium acceptable?

Response: The leasing moratorium was a place holder instituted to withhold leasing until it could be 

addressed in this RMP/EIS. 

Comment: BLM has not explained how many current leases or how production operations would be 

affected. Similarly, BLM needs to explain why Large Block NSO areas would not provide adequate 

protection for “administratively closed” areas. EM is concerned that the large avoidance areas would 

result in gas resources being lost because ROWs are limited or wells are denied. With respect to the 

proposed increased use of surface use restrictions, BLM needs to disclose both the developments that 

would be deferred or forgone due to the extra costs associated with directional drilling, seasonal closures, 

and other mitigation requirements, and the impacts of the loss of recoverable natural gas resources to 

consumers.

Response: All existing legal and valid rights would be honored. The areas available for oil and gas 

leasing, and subject to NSO restrictions, have been revised in the final EIS. It is not possible to know 

exactly what developments would be deferred or forgone due to the extra costs associated with directional 

drilling, seasonal closures, other mitigation requirements, and the impacts of the loss of recoverable 

natural gas resources to consumers until these actions actually result in wells not being drilled or facilities 

not installed. It is certainly conceivable that this could occur, which is why it is presented as a potential 

impact. It would be incumbent on the operators/leaseholders to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 

Authorized Officer that a COA could not be technically or economically implemented. 

Comment: As for the proposed withdrawal of from 13,770 to 65,750 acres of fluid mineral leasing, only 

those areas with a direct and proven negative impact on native wildlife populations (not feral horses) 

should actually be considered for withdrawal from any other types of multiple use activity.

Response: All mineral development has at least some negative impact on native wildlife, due to physical 

site disturbance, noise, human presence, traffic, and disruptive activities. The alternatives attempt to 

provide balance on a planning area scale between heavily industrialized areas and undeveloped areas 

more amenable to wildlife occupancy.

Comment: The proposed restriction on new access routes within big game crucial winter range, see RMP 

DEIS, pgs. 2-146 - 148, may violate existing lease rights and the rights granted to operators of approved 

oil and gas units. See Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 127 IBLA 331, 372 (1993). The BLM should 

not unreasonably restrict access to federal oil and gas leases or units. CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED 

ENVIRONMENT

Response: See revised language in the final EIS that states: “Exceptions could be allowed to provide 

reasonable access to privately- and state-owned lands, as well as to valid existing federal oil and gas 

leases.” 

Comment: • Do not grant significant exceptions to seasonal and temporal occupancy restrictions. 

Response: The RMP does not grant exceptions to seasonal or temporal restrictions, but, as required by 

BLM’s planning guidance and the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA), it does provide guidance for 

evaluating exception requests. Seasonal restrictions do not protect wildlife habitats, because the activities 

Pinedale RMP A27-253 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

postponed are carried out in the next non-crucial season. When development reaches a density or other 

point where animals no longer use the habitats, seasonal restrictions do not provide any value.

Comment: Trapper’s Point, Ryegrass/Cottonwood and Fontenelle Elk Winter Range: Consistent with my 

stated views regarding protection for the Wind River Front, I would encourage the BLM to consider 

expanded protection for the Trapper’s Point, Ryegrass/ Cottonwood and Fontenelle Elk Winter Range 

similar to the prescriptions outlined in Map 2-3, which depicts the Oil and Gas Leasing Categories for 

Alternative 3. Retaining unleased surface acreage within these areas for wildlife and other uses, like 

grazing, makes inherent sense given the scope and scale of already-leased acreage within the Pinedale 

Field Office. 

Response: The Trapper’s Point area is unavailable for leasing, as outlined in Alternative 4 of the draft 

EIS. In addition, in the final EIS, the Ryegrass and Bench Corral (Cottonwood) areas would be 

unavailable for leasing. 

Comment: The following objectives are necessary to propagate Sublette County wildlife populations as 

we have known them in the recent past. They include the following: 3. Oil and gas leasing, development, 

and production should be regulated to the extent that wildlife and human populations can adjust and 

habituate.

Response: Alternatives 3 and 4 have varying levels of acreage unavailable for oil and gas leasing and 

make other areas unavailable for surface disturbance for oil and gas development. Both of these scenarios 

are designed to provide increased protection for wildlife and other values in areas that are not currently 

affected by oil and gas development. 

Comment: We find the current federal and state management of our wildlife resources to be reactive, 

with no clear plans to maintain, improve or restore habitats so vital to the future of our wildlife 

populations. Accordingly, we insist that the following corrective actions be considered and implemented: 

5. Best management practices such as liquid gathering systems and directional drilling should be required 

on crucial wildlife ranges and not used as a bargaining chip for winter access by industry.

Response: Appendices 3 and 5 of the draft EIS provide best management practices that would be 

applicable to whatever alternative or modified alternative is ultimately implemented.

Comment: We find the current federal and state management of our wildlife resources to be reactive, 

with no clear plans to maintain, improve or restore habitats so vital to the future of our wildlife 

populations. Accordingly, we insist that the following corrective actions be considered and implemented: 

8. A detailed. habitat mitigation plan should be prepared prior to authorizing any further Anticline in-field 

development including: 

• Specific land areas targeted with techniques identified and expected results quantified according 

to habitat and population response. 

• Priority. placed on-site mitigation with off site mitigation offered as an alternative. 

• Projects should benefit species affected by development, i.e. an off-site duck pond or 

conservation easement is not appropriate. • Funding sources should be identified and secured. 

• All clearances (archeological, livestock permittees, state and WGFD) should be secured. 

• Any off-site mitigation should occur within defined herd units affected by Anticline development.

A27-254 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: Alternatives 3 and 4 have varying levels of acreage unavailable for oil and gas leasing and 

make other areas unavailable for surface disturbance for oil and gas development. Both of these scenarios 

are designed to provide increased protection for wildlife and other values in areas that are not currently 

affected by oil and gas development. Pinedale Anticline management, including onsite/offsite mitigation, 

funding, and clearances, is being developed through the supplemental EIS to the ROD to the Pinedale 

Anticline Project Area (PAPA). 

Comment: After reviewing the Draft EIS documentation, I believe the only realistic conclusion is that the 

Preferred Alternative (4) would have the affect of completing the industrialization of Sublette County that 

is already well under way. The proposed amount and location of the acreage which would be newly 

opened to gas development would almost certainly take us to, and beyond, the tipping point for serious air 

quality degradation, wildlife habitat diminishment, and our ability to absorb the social impacts of this 

industrialization process.

Response: Alternative 4 certainly does provide for oil and gas development, but it also makes areas 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing and makes other area unavailable for surface disturbance, both of 

which provide or maintain important habitats for wildlife. Each of the alternatives projects varying levels 

of impacts to air quality, wildlife, and socioeconomic values. It is important to remember that the 1988 

RMP allowed leasing in the entire planning area, except for the WSAs. The leaseholders/operators have 

valid and existing rights to develop and produce these existing leases.

Comment: The government’s alternative to drill in this area, Alternative 4, would increase the number of 

gas wells threefold in the upcoming decade. Drilling at this rate will threaten wildlife dramatically and 

decrease the air quality.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to present a reasonable range of alternatives and make 

projections of the impacts associated with each of those alternatives. Accordingly, the draft EIS projects 

varying levels of impacts to air quality, wildlife, and socioeconomic values, as well as to other resource 

values. Alternative 4 provides a mid-range of impacts between the higher level of commodity production 

in Alternative 2 and the higher level of surface resource protection in Alternative 3. Again, it is important 

to remember that regardless of the alternative ultimately selected, approximately 65% of the federal 

lands/federal mineral estate in the planning area is currently leased under the 1988 RMP. The 

leaseholders/operators have valid and existing rights to develop and produce these existing leases. 

Comment: We therefore join many other concerned citizens in asking the BLM to choose the alternative 

that would do the following: 

• Set a reasonable pace for drilling; 

• Cluster drilling infrastructure so it minimizes impact on the land and wildlife; 

• Strengthen seasonal drilling restrictions; and 

• Withdraw additional critical areas from development

Response: Alternative 4 would establish different oil and gas management areas, which in essence, would 

cluster most development in the intensive development areas, other areas would be made unavailable for 

leasing or new leases would be unavailable for surface occupancy. Development in the Jonah Field would 

continue as prescribed in the 2006 ROD for the Jonah Infill EIS. The Pinedale Anticline is being 

developed through clustering multiple wells on pads to reduce the total number of wells pads, roads, 

pipelines, production facilities. Seasonal restriction would be retained as described under the various 

alternatives in the draft EIS. 

Pinedale RMP A27-255 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: I am opposed the Alternative #4 which is the preferred alternative of the BLM. This 

alternative will only escalate the environmental impacts that are already threatening the wildlife corridors 

and pristine landscape of Sublette County. To protect what is really of the greatest value now and for the 

future is to designate Green River, upper New Fork, and Hoback Rim areas as Unavailable for Leasing in 

the RMP.

Response: The RMP is designed to address a reasonable range of alternatives. Alternative 4 would make 

much of the federal lands and minerals along the Wind River Front, which includes the Upper Green, 

Upper New Fork River, and Hoback Rim areas, unavailable for new oil and gas leasing or unavailable for 

surface disturbance. Management of federal lands and mineral estates in the Upper Green are being 

addressed in the final EIS. It is important to remember that approximately 65% of the federal 

lands/federal mineral estate in the planning area, including portions of the Upper Green, Upper New Fork, 

and Hoback Rim areas, is currently leased under the 1988 RMP. The leaseholders/operators have valid 

and existing rights to develop and produce these existing leases.

Comment: I am afraid drilling companies need to extend the time that drilling takes place and where ever 

in-fill drilling takes place, must make absolutely sure there is no critical habitat, grouse leks etc. in the 

area of drilling.

Response: Unfortunately, oil and gas resources and crucial wildlife habitats, including sage-grouse, occur 

at the same locations throughout the planning area. That is why the draft EIS/RMP addressed a range of 

alternatives concerning the management of these resources.

Comment: Opening the upper Green River, upper New Fork River and Hoback Rim areas for oil and gas 

leasing is not acceptable. I live in Hoback Ranches near Bondurant and use these areas for recreation. 

These areas are of critical importance to clean ground water, wildlife, tourism and ranching. The Green 

River and its headwaters must be protected. The Rim is a critical wildlife corridor for the entire 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. There is no immediate need to open these areas to road building and drilling 

other than to benefit oil and gas developers who can inflate their balance sheets and stock prices. Sublette 

County north of Daniel needs to be off limits to oil and gas development. “No surface occupancy” does 

not prevent drillers with access to private/state land from destroying the pristine beauty of this area with 

roads, pipeline corridors and air pollution.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP does not “open” the Upper Green River, Upper New Fork River, and 

Hoback Rim areas to oil and gas leasing. Under the current RMP, which was approved in 1988, these 

areas are open to oil and gas leasing. A leasing moratorium was initiated in 1999 that withholds leasing 

along the Wind River Front and Hoback Rim area pending the completion of a revision of the 1988 RMP. 

This draft EIS/RMP constitutes that revision. Alternatives 1 and 2 would retain the referenced area open 

to leasing; Alternative 3 would make the area unavailable for leasing; Alternative 4 would make portions 

of the area unavailable for leasing and other portions available for leasing but unavailable for surface 

occupancy. Management of federal lands and mineral estates in the Upper Green/Hoback Rim are being 

addressed in the final EIS.

Comment: Regarding oil/gas leasing and drilling and any related production activities, such practices 

should be strictly limited to areas where other sorts of development exists, whether similar (industrial, 

etc.) or different (business, recreation areas, tourist facilities, etc.), and/or in foothill/frontal ranges, but 

not inside the general forest lands whether roaded/trailed/roadless and definitely not “back country” or 

wilderness areas nor residential subdivision type areas that exist. 

Response: Under the various alternatives, the draft EIS identified areas that would be unavailable for 

leasing, areas where new leases would be unavailable for surface occupancy, areas where development 

A27-256 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

density would be restricted, areas subject to seasonal restrictions, and areas subject to standard mitigation. 

Concentrating development in areas adjacent to recreation areas or tourist facilities would likely not be 

consistent with the management objectives for these areas. The planning area contains forested lands 

along the foothills adjoining USFS lands along the east slope of the Wind River Mountains, on the 

Hoback Rim, and on the west slope of the Wyoming Range. The management of these forested lands 

would be based on all of the resource values they contain, including the potential for mineral 

development. Under alternatives 3 and 4, large portions of these lands would be unavailable for leasing or 

new leases would be unavailable for surface occupancy. Lands within the National Forest are beyond the 

jurisdiction of this RMP. The planning area contains two WSAs, both of which are identified under all 

alternatives as unavailable for leasing.

Comment: The oil and gas industry is pumping records volumes of gas out of those wells on the Jonah 

and in the Anticline and they should be held to record standards. They should be required to employee the 

BEST technology available to reduce impacts on air, water, and the land. For example, a liquids gathering 

system was proposed as a quid pro quo on the Anticline in exchange for drilling during winter mule deer 

occupation. If a liquids gathering system results in less impact on the land, air, wildlife and community, it 

should be required regardless. best management practices really should be the best, and they should be 

required on all past, current and future oil and gas fields. 

Response: The applicability of best management practices varies with site characteristics, resources 

affected, and the type of development proposed. Specific mitigations and management practices for the 

Jonah and Anticline fields are determined through the specific NEPA and permitting processes for those 

fields.

Comment: I would like to see areas of concentrated development with reseeding and a thorough clean up 

before other areas are explored. While I oppose winter drilling due to disruption of wintering wildlife and 

the haze and inversions that diesel fumes create, if it is unavoidable, then drilling rigs and service trucks 

should run on clean burning natural gas instead of diesel. Careful attention to migration routes for deer 

and antelope should preclude development in those areas. I would also like to see more BLM and EPA 

inspectors hired to make sure that any environmental hazards are caught early before they can damage the 

aquifers, wildlife, or air quality. The efforts of Questar to use pipelines to remove condensate in order to 

decrease truck traffic should be commended and required by all operators. Stiff penalties for 

environmental spills or violation of agreed upon drilling practices should be instituted and enforced. 

Again, a much needed role for both BLM and EPA inspectors.

Response: Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would designate intensive or concentrated development areas. 

Additionally, one or more alternatives in the draft supplemental EIS for the Pinedale Anticline also 

provide for concentrated development areas. The RMP also lays the framework for reclamation. Projectspecific NEPA analysis would give more specific reclamation guidance. Holders of existing leases have 

valid existing legal rights to develop and produce those leases. BLM cannot prohibit a leaseholder in one 

area from developing his/her lease until a leaseholder or holders in another area complete reclamation 

operations. Alternatives 3 and 4 contain management actions designed to protect big game migration. 

Installation of liquids-gathering systems is certainly a BMP to be used where possible, but like many 

BMPs, it is not a measure applicable to all wells. Many wells in the planning area do not produce 

sufficient volumes of condensate and/or produced water to warrant a gathering system.

Comment: Based on over a decade of involvement by many of our partner groups in the federal process 

of developing oil and gas in the Northern Rockies, our first principle for responsible development is a 

conservation plan for the area to be developed. We see no such planning process proposed for any 

alternative for the Proposed RMP. In fact blocks of habitat suggested for such protections as “no surface 

occupancy” or designation as “unavailable” provide the loophole that such designation may be changed 

Pinedale RMP A27-257 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

for a variety of reasons, mostly if oil or gas is found above a certain level. This proposal continues the 

process we have seen elsewhere in Wyoming and other states where a “few wells” are drilled and 

development then occurs at the pace and scope desired by the developing company, and management of 

the rest of the public’s interest is relegated to “after the fact” reaction to what is happening. This is an 

unacceptable process, and does not protect the public’s interest in its lands and wildlife.

Response: As directed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Federal Land Management and Policy 

Act of 1976, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, oil and gas development is one of the resource values 

that BLM is mandated to manage for public benefit. The alternatives in this RMP make varying 

allocations of lands available for oil and gas leasing and development consistent with these mandates. 

Conversion from “unavailable for leasing” status requires additional NEPA analysis and the meeting of a 

number of criteria before conversion can be implemented. The language for conversion, and the areas 

available for oil and gas leasing, have been modified in the final EIS. 

Comment: How can we create a state office [The Jonah Interagency Office] to mitigate the destruction of 

sensitive habitat by a massive widespread industrial oil and gas development when we haven’t even 

agreed on how much we are going to destroy? The Jonah Interagency Office’s sole responsibility is to 

create compensatory habitat with $25 million in Sublette County and the surrounding area to offset the 

occupation of the existing oil and gas field out on the Mesa. How can this be achieved when the very 

places that could provide this compensatory habitat is being leased out countywide to the same companies 

destroying the previous habitat? It makes no sense. How is this happening? 

Response: The Jonah Interagency Office was established through the Jonah Infill EIS, is consistent with 

decisions in the current RMP approved in 1988, and pre-dates any decisions that may result from this 

RMP revision. Alternatives 3 and 4 respectively make 711,920 and 174,410 acres unavailable for oil and 

gas leasing. Depending on which alternative or combination of alternatives ultimately become the RMP 

decision, unleased lands would be available for compensatory habitat augmentation.

Comment: 4. Finally, that you lead the Wyoming Congressional delegation in proposing that certain 

federal lands in the Upper Green River Basin be permanently withdrawn from oil and gas leasing. A 

precedent for such a withdrawal has taken place recently by the action of the Montana congressional 

delegation. Such key areas could be the Wind River Mountain’s front land, that being below the 

Wilderness boundary. There also are selected areas along the flanks of the Wyoming Range which should 

be withdrawn. The Upper Green River Valley Coalition has identified these areas in more detail as having 

significant wildlife benefits. 

Response: The RMP considers many areas that could potentially be made unavailable for leasing. The 

areas available for oil and gas leasing have been revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: The RMP DEIS notes that “[s]urface use and timing restrictions resulting from this RMP 

cannot be applied to existing leases.” See RMP DEIS, pg. 2-8. Unfortunately, the BLM improperly 

attempts to back away from this statement by suggesting the BLM could impose conditions of approval 

(“COAs”) to “mitigate potential impacts from oil and gas operations.” The BLM must not attempt to use 

site-specific COAs as a means to enforce new management objectives or stipulations on existing leases.

Response: The RMP draft EIS does properly state that BLM cannot retroactively apply new stipulations 

to existing leases. Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-2 state: “A lessee shall have the right to use so 

much of the leased lands as is necessary to explore for, drill for, mine, extract, remove and dispose of all 

the leased resource in a leasehold subject to: Stipulations attached to the lease: restrictions deriving from 

specific nondiscretionary statutes; and such reasonable measures as may be required by the authorized 

officer to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the 

A27-258 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

lease stipulations at the time operations are proposed” (emphasis added). Attaching a timing limitation 

COA to an APD or Sundry Notice approval is consistent with this regulation.

Comment: In its discussion of directional drilling on page 4-47, the BLM should also discuss 

information regarding limitations on the BLM’s ability to mandate directional drilling. The IBLA has 

noted that the BLM does not have the authority to require the movement of proposed operations more 

than 200 meters, unless a nondiscretionary statute is implicated. See Colorado Envtl. Coal., et al., 169 

IBLA 137, 144 (2006) (holding that BLM cannot require relocation of a proposed well by 400 meters); 

see also 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2 (2006). The BLM properly notes that directional drilling increases costs 

and results in lost resources when casing cannot be brought to the bottom of the hole. See RMP DEIS, pg 

4-49.

Response: We recognize that BLM cannot retroactively impose new “stipulations” on existing oil and gas 

leases; however, 43 CFR 3101.1-2 does give the authorized officer the authority to impose such 

reasonable measures as may be required to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses, 

or users not addressed in the lease stipulations at the time operations are proposed. Regulations also give 

the leaseholder or operator the right to appeal imposed requirements he/she believe are not “reasonable 

measures”. 

Comment: The basis for the Agency's Preferred Alternative appears overly tailored to the concerns of a 

very small minority. To wit, the Pinedale Field Office natural gas fields have a combined estimated 

reserve of 7 trillion cubic feet, equating to far less than 1% of U.S. fossil fuel reserves. In terms of global 

fossil fuel (including oil, coal, cbm, etc.) reserves, these natural gas reserves are simply too minor to rate 

on charts. And this of course does nothing to address technically recoverable alternative energy 

capacities. At the same time, the BLM Pinedale Field Office/Sublette County is the non-migratory home 

of the most concentrated populations of sage grouse in the world, a sensitive species which BLM purports 

to be trying to avoid ESA listing of. The area includes far more than a few percent of the species global 

reserve. Furthermore, BLM¬PFO administered lands provide the majority of limiting habitat (crucial 

winter range) for multiple big game species inhabiting the v-shaped mountain ranges beyond the Rockiesbound planning area. The relative significance of various resources should be placed in pertinent context. 

Once this is done, the management alternatives presented should be weighed relative to current and 

anticipated human adaptation potential.

Response: Based on Department of Energy (Boswell et. al. 2002b) estimates, the Pinedale Field Office 

has 421 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of gas in place. The estimated recoverable reserves just from the Jonah 

Field and the Pinedale Anticline are in excess of 30 TCF, about 25.8 TCF recoverable from the Pinedale 

Anticline (June 2006 article by Diane Freeman in AAPG Explorer, volume 27, number 6, page 14) and 10 

TCF from Jonah (EnCana’s public website http://www.encana.com/operations/usa/wyoming/ 

jonah/index.htm). DOE’s Energy Information Administration’s “U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural 

Gas Liquid Reserves 2005 Annual Report” puts Pinedale number 2, Jonah number 6 and Fogarty Creek 

(Riley Ridge) number 19 in the top 100 fields in the United States ranked by proved reserves of gas. 

(http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/curre

nt/pdf/appb.pdf). As directed by FLPMA, BLM has a mandate to manage the federal lands under its 

jurisdiction for multiple use. This means on a broad scale and not necessarily on a project-by-project 

basis. The alternatives in the draft EIS/RMP do provide a range of multiple-use management 

opportunities. This includes Alternative 4, which would designate certain areas “unavailable for oil and 

gas leasing”, other areas available for leasing subject to NSO stipulations, and areas open to less 

restrictive surface disturbance requirements. 

Comment: The BLM must not lease any lands along the Wind River Front, and in the areas which have 

already been leased (like the Anticline Field and Jonah Field), the BLM must follow through with 

Pinedale RMP A27-259 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

directional drilling implementation, phased development (with sufficient rest-no drilling/activity zones 

and proper restoration areas), and no further winter drilling activities on big-game winter range.

Response: Under Alternatives 3 and 4, the federal lands and mineral estates under BLM’s jurisdiction 

along the Wind River Front would be unavailable for leasing. The entire Jonah Field and the vast majority 

of the area within the boundary of the Pinedale Anticline EIS (July 2000) are currently leased and the 

leaseholders/operators have valid existing rights to develop and produce those leases. See the final EIS for 

management of the unleased lands within the PAPA EIS boundary. The decision record for Questar Yearround Drilling EA provides for a certain level of drilling within the mule deer crucial winter range within 

the PAPA EIS area.

Comment: Defer site specific mitigations in the RMP. Develop new winter drilling BMPs. Improve 

access for development.

Response: Proposed site-specific mitigation measures, BMPs, and access for development as specified in 

the draft EIS are appropriate.

Comment: In critical habitat, drilling should wait for new and improved drilling. Also if directional 

drilling is more expensive so be it if I have to pay more for my natural gas in order to protect wildlife, 

outdoor recreation and scenic view.

Response: Oil and gas development and drilling technologies are continually evolving. Directional 

drilling is being used on the Pinedale Anticline with lateral reaches out to about 1⁄2 mile. Directional 

drilling, mat pads, and other surface disturbance and human presence reduction measures are being used 

in the Jonah Field. Where feasible, horizontal drilling is being used in portions of the La Barge Platform. 

However, because each of these fields coincide with broad areas of important wildlife habitats, it is not 

possible to achieve reasonable development of the oil and gas resources without occupying portions of the 

important habitats. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-226 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: Area is entirely 

leased NSO in large block does not conform to NSO criteria and is an unlawful withdrawal. See 

Comment Ch. 2-26-28; 86.

Response: BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP. 

Comment: PAGE: A7-3 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise RMP to conform. Appendix 

7 states: The NSO stipulation is intended for use only when other stipulations are determined insufficient 

to adequately protect the public interest. The land management plan/NEPA document prepared for leasing 

must show that less restrictive stipulations were considered and determined by the authorized officer to be 

insufficient (i.e., show a reason that the NSO stipulation is needed). The planning/NEPA record must also 

show that consideration was given to a no-lease alternative when applying an NSO stipulation. An NSO 

stipulation is not needed if the desired protection would not require relocation of proposed operations by 

more than 200 meters (43 CFR §3101.1-2). The legal subdivision, distance, location, or geographic 

feature, and resource value of concern must be identified in the stipulation and be tied to a land 

management plan and/or NEPA document. Land description may be stated as— 

• The “Entire Lease” 

• Distance from resources and facilities such as rivers, trails, and campgrounds 

• Legal description 

• Geographic feature such as a 100-year floodplain 

• Municipal watershed, percent of slope, and the like EXPLANATION: This paragraph correctly 

states policy but not followed in RMP.

A27-260 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: The RMP identifies NSO areas that are consistent with Appendix 7. NSOs are proposed for 

areas where relocating well pads 200 meters or less would not provide the desired surface resource 

protection. 

Comment: While methods such as directional drilling may be a viable (albeit limited) option to 

companies who seek to develop resources under Large Block NSO Areas, to accomplish geophysical 

exploration over such leases it is necessary for those operations to be conducted directly upon the surface. 

Therefore, we urge that stipulations allow geophysical operations in these Large Block NSO Areas. It has 

not been shown that geophysical activity has had a negative impact on any wildlife. In fact, geophysical 

operations have a near-zero impact on the environment and should be allowed to be conducted in any 

multiple-use area under BLM’s jurisdiction. 

Response: Page 2-122 in the draft EIS states: “Geophysical projects, including projects proposed in areas 

with an NSO restriction, would be analyzed and mitigation developed on a case-by-case basis”. 

Comment: Therefore, before you open more areas in Wyoming for leasing, please understand clearly that 

when a lease is developed, every modification to existing road, pipelines, trucking routes, power lines, 

storage facilites, and refinery upgrades will have an enormous negative effect on air quality, water quality 

and further decrease wildlife and fish habitat. The impact on the lease site is small compared with the 

entire human impact that follows each and every lease that is developed.

Response: Lease development beyond exploration operations would require detailed NEPA analysis 

(EA/EIS) that would address project-related actions. End user modifications (i.e., refinery upgrades, etc.), 

or even who or where the end product user may be, are not known or predictable at the time of leasing or 

at the lease development stage. Known and anticipated impacts are addressed through this EIS and 

through the NEPA project-level development process.

Comment: Page 3-37 Yates objects to the proposal to place very high, high, and moderate potential in an 

NSO or unavailable categories without proper justification. As it stands in the DEIS, no clear justification 

has been provided. 

Response: The 1988 RMP made certain lands, such as elk feedgrounds, national historic trails, sagegrouse leks, etc., available for oil and gas leasing. NSO stipulations were placed on these lands to protect 

the associated resource values. This action allowed for oil and gas development and production, but 

required the extraction operations be conducted from lands outside the NSO. The draft EIS would 

continue the management of many of these NSO-restricted areas, and under the different alternatives, 

create others to protect specific important surface resources. 

Comment: Page 4-46, 4.7.1, 5th Bullet Implies Large Block NSO areas are unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing. Page 2-121, however, states that Large Block NSO areas would be available for leasing with 

NSO stipulations. This is ambiguous and the BLM should clarify. 

Response: Bullet 5 on page 4-46 (4.7.1) of the draft EIS states that areas within the Large Block NSOs 

may be beyond the current technical capabilities of directional or other drilling techniques and therefore 

certain oil and gas resources within those NSOs may be unrecoverable even though the lands are available 

for leasing. The areas available for oil and gas leasing, and subject to NSO restrictions, have been revised 

in the final EIS. 

Comment: Page A3-4, No Surface Occupancy Guideline Comment: The BLM does provide for a waiver, 

exception, or modification of an NSO planning decision, but once in place, the reality is it would take a 

Pinedale RMP A27-261 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Herculean effort to undo an NSO planning decision. Before implementation, the BLM should take a “hard 

look” at potential NSO areas and they must be supported by valid data.

Response: BLM has taken a hard look at the NSO designations. Scientific wildlife studies show that 

certain wildlife occurrences have declined in the Jonah Field and on the Pinedale Anticline and that 

certain oil and gas operations have displaced winter wildlife in the Big Piney-La Barge area. Big game 

and sage-grouse lek monitoring show that big game wintering populations and lek attendance has 

experienced some increase in certain areas outside of these fields. The NSO and unavailable area 

designations are intended to provide enhanced wildlife protection in such areas.

Comment: APPENDIX 11 Comment: Without expressly mentioning it, this appendix summarizes the 

BLM’s adaptive management concept. Operators currently monitor several resources using many 

techniques. The data collected from this monitoring is then submitted to the respective agency for 

analysis. That's where the process falls apart. The agencies are under-staffed and do not have the 

manpower to perform the analysis. Appendix 11 discusses data analysis and assessment and implies that 

the agencies will perform the analysis. Hopefully, the agencies will be able to perform this task, as it is 

critical to the adaptive management process. Additionally, Operators must enjoy the benefits of adaptive 

management. For example, if monitoring shows that a two-mile buffer around a sage-grouse lek is too 

conservative, the BLM should revise its sage-grouse policy to conform to the monitoring results.

Response: The intent of adaptive management is to augment restrictions when studies show that they are 

not achieving the desired results. It is also intended to relax restrictions when the monitoring indicates 

that the desired results can be achieved without the restriction(s) or with less restrictive measures.

Comment: There are some areas within the greater whole that are so important and so sensitive for 

wildlife, historic, and aesthetic values that they should be withdrawn from any further leasing now or in 

the future. One of these is the Wind River Front from the greater South Pass area north to the New Fork 

Lakes and the Upper Green River. The southern part of this whole area is not only critical sage grouse 

habitat but is a significant national historic area, including The South Pass and the Lander Cut-off of the 

Oregon Trail.

Response: The South Pass area is outside of the planning area and therefore outside the jurisdiction of 

this RMP. The areas available for oil and gas leasing have been revised in the final EIS. Management of 

federal lands and mineral estates in the Upper Green are being addressed in the final EIS. It is important 

to remember that approximately 65% of the federal lands/federal mineral estate in the planning area, 

including portions of the Upper Green, Upper New Fork, and Hoback Rim areas, is currently leased under 

the 1988 RMP. The leaseholders/operators have valid and existing rights to develop and produce these 

existing leases.

Comment: In regard to the sage grouse, I note that some of the latest research points to the recognition 

and protection of “core habitat areas” as a means of saving the species. Other withdrawal areas are the 

Trapper’s Point area and the attendant and critically important antelope migration corridors, the 

Fontenelle area, and parts of the Ryegrass and Cottonwood areas. 

Response: The areas available for oil and gas leasing have been revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: Rather than passively accepting or allowing the creation of high density well fields in areas 

that the BLM has determined should be managed to “provid[e] the maximum level of environmental 

protection,” 2-19, BLM can and must set limits on the density of permissible development in Unavailable 

and Large Block NSO Areas to allow it to maintain the management focus it has determined is 

appropriate in these areas. Presumably at a minimum well pad density should not be allowed to exceed a 

A27-262 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

density of one pad per 160 acres in these areas, and in many areas, such as big game crucial winter 

ranges, big migration corridors, big game parturition areas, the scenic and historic corridor along the 

Lander Trail, and Class II visual resource management areas, as well as many other areas, the acceptable 

well density should be set at a lesser density. This again is particularly true relative to the acceptable level 

of surface disturbance.

Response: The basic intent for management of the unavailable and NSO areas is to have no well 

development in these areas. The caveat to allow leasing to occur within the unavailable area and/or well 

pads to be constructed within the NSO areas is predicated on BLM’s responsibility to ensure proper 

collection of royalties for the extraction of federal minerals. In the event BLM determines that non-federal 

wells are draining federal reserves, BLM is obligated to curb the loss. This is typically done through 

developing offsetting wells; hence the need for the caveat. It is not possible at the RMP stage to determine 

the level of development (i.e., well density) necessary for the cessation of the drainage of federal 

minerals. 

Comment: EOG is particularly concerned that Alternative 3 is inconsistent with its existing lease rights. 

As noted above, the vast majority of EOG’s leases in the Big Piney/La Barge area are not subject to 

existing seasonal stipulations and development operations are only subject to the limitations in 43 C.F.R. 

§ 3101-1.2. Because the BLM cannot impose seasonal or timing restrictions longer than 60 days on 

EOG’s proposed development operations, Alternative 3, which would essentially mandate seasonal 

restrictions, is contrary to EOG's existing lease rights. The BLM cannot impose seasonal conditions of 

approval or limitations on leases issued prior to FLPMA that do not contain seasonal stipulations. See, 

e.g., Colorado Environmental Coal., et al., 165 IBLA 221, 227 (2005) (determining that the holder of an 

oil and gas lease issued prior to the enactment of FLPMA may develop the leasehold to the extent 

authorized by the issuance document). As recognized by the IBLA, the “authority conferred by FLPMA is 

expressly made subject to valid and existing rights, and therefore an RMP prepared pursuant to FLPMA’s 

authority, after lease execution and after drilling and production has commenced, is likewise subject to 

[the lessee’s] valid existing right to exploit its lease, and cannot serve to defeat or materially restrain that 

right.” Colorado Environmental Coal., et al., 165 IBLA 221, 228 (2005) (citing Colorado Environmental 

Coal., 135 IBLA 356, 360 (1996) aff’d, Colorado Environmental Coal. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

932 F.Supp. 1247 (D.Colo. 1996).

Response: BLM does not disagree with the comment that it does not have the authority, once a lease is 

issued, to impose new stipulations or new restrictions on a lease that exceed the terms and conditions of 

existing leases. As stated on page 2-8 of the draft EIS, existing rights would be honored. Alternative 3 

does not impose new stipulations on existing leases. It does, however, provide the framework for 

application of COAs to post-lease actions that are determined through project- and/or site-specific NEPA 

analysis to be necessary for the mitigation of anticipated impacts. 

Sufficient case law exists to clearly demonstrate that BLM does have the authority and responsibility to 

impose new restrictions once a lease has been issued, as long as BLM does not deny development of the 

lease or totally preclude surface disturbing activities. Therefore, our position and policy is to take a “hard 

look” at the environmental consequences of a proposed action at the field development and APD stage 

and, if necessary, require mitigation measures as means of reducing impacts. The Secretary of the Interior 

has the authority and responsibility to protect the environment of public lands within federal oil and gas 

leases (Copper Valley Mach. Works, Inc. V. Andrus, 474 F. Supp. 189, 191 (D.D.C. 1979)). The 

Secretary may impose restrictions on lease terms in fulfillment of this responsibility (Natural Resources 

Defense Counsel V. Bergland, 458 F. Supp 925, 937 (D.D.C. 1978)). 

In various oil and gas lease forms, the Secretary reserves the right to incorporate general standards into 

the lease aimed at mitigating environmental damage. However, mitigation must be reasonable. Such postPinedale RMP A27-263 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

lease restrictions cannot directly, or indirectly, preclude the development of the lease, absent a no surface 

occupancy stipulation on the lease. Sierra Club V. Peterson, 717 F. 2d 1409 (1983) provides: “On lands 

leased without a No Surface Occupancy Stipulation, the Department cannot deny the permit to drill; it can 

only impose ‘reasonable’ conditions which are designed to mitigate the environmental impacts of the 

drilling operation” (p. 1411). It continues: “Once the land is leased the Department no longer has the 

authority to preclude surface disturbing activities even if the environmental impact of that activity is 

significant...” 

What is reasonable will vary with each individual APD. A “taking” would occur if after a lease, without 

an NSO stipulation, is issued, the lessee is prohibited from conducting development activities on the 

leased lands. A “taking” could also occur if COAs imposed at the APD stage are so stringent that it is not 

practical to conduct operations. It is not the policy of the BLM to utilize unjustified stipulations or COAs.

Comment: BLM has failed to provide any justification for “unavailable areas” designed to protect 

wildlife habitats. Given the fact that all species in the Field Office area are at target populations, it has 

been clearly demonstrated that current mitigation measures are effective. This approach appears to be 

aimed at capitulating to the public and state agencies who do not subscribe to BLM’s multiple-use 

management mandate. Oil and gas is by nature phased as a result of leasing, rig availability, and capital 

budgets. It is unwarranted for BLM to further control the rate of development by artificially imposing 

leasing moratoria under the guise of protecting wildlife species. 

Response: The Sawyer mule deer study determined that seasonal restrictions on oil and gas development 

are not effective in retaining mule deer occupation on crucial winter habitat. The study shows a 46% 

decline in winter mule deer occupation on the Mesa between 1998 and 2006 commensurate with the 

increasing development and production on the Pinedale Anticline. 

Comment: The proposed Oil and Gas Management Areas function as land allocation categories in the 

RMP. They include Intensively Developed Fields, Minimally Developed Areas, Large Block NSOs, and 

Unavailable Areas. With oil and gas development as a major land use and having potentially severe 

impacts on other resources, we support a land allocation system that would help assure that impacts are 

more certainly avoided and managed on the landscape, and one that allows a major part of that landscape 

to function properly at any point in time. 

However, there is no assurance in any alternative that these particular allocations would persist over the 

life of the RMP, or that a reliable number of functional acres would remain for other land uses. Any of the 

allocations could become Intensively Developed Fields through offsets for drainage issues and/or 

downhole spacings exceeding one well per 160 acres. In total, this could be a significant number of acres 

over the Field Office area. The Minimally Developed Areas, in particular, make up a large percentage of 

the Field Office Area, resulting in a high probability for a higher density of wells over a large area. 

Existing leases within Large Block NSOs and offsets for these areas, in total, could significantly negate 

the benefits of trying to limit surface disturbance in that allocation. Given the number of non-federal 

lease-holdings near the Wind River Front, the Unavailable Areas near there could contribute large 

acreages for offsets. 

In order for our agency to more accurately plan for long-term impacts, we encourage that the FEIS 

contain a more realistic (worst-case) scenario concerning the lands that will likely not be available as 

functional habitat for wildlife. We suggest an estimate of potential offset areas, and maps that depict the 

current lease-holdings within each type of allocation area.

Response: The basic intent for management of the unavailable and Larger Block NSO areas is to in have 

no well development in these areas. The caveat to allow leasing to occur within the unavailable area 

A27-264 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

and/or well pads to be constructed within the NSO areas is predicated on BLM’s responsibility to Ensure 

proper collection of royalties for the extraction of federal minerals. In the event BLM determines that 

non-federal wells are draining federal reserves, BLM is obligated to curb the loss. This is typically done 

through developing offsetting wells; hence the need for the caveat. It is not possible at the RMP stage to 

determine the level of development (i.e., well density) that would be necessary for the cessation of the 

drainage of federal minerals. Additional impact discussion has been added to the final EIS. 

Until a drainage situation occurs, BLM does not have sufficient data to be able to reasonably project or 

predict where drainage would occur that may require the developing of offsetting federal wells. Map 1-3 

in the draft EIS depicts existing leased federal mineral estate. The map has been updated in the final EIS. 

BLM considered your suggestion to overlay the different management areas with the existing leased 

lands, but determined that it would make the map too cluttered and confusing. 

Comment: In the scoping comments submitted by Wyoming Outdoor Council, Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance, et al., on April 7, 2003, we requested that all future leases for oil and gas drilling 

be issued with No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations until site-specific analysis is completed. NSO 

stipulations would allow BLM the maximum flexibility for management in the future of parcels available 

for leasing. If resource issues should change over the course of a lease, for example, if weather conditions 

cause vegetation to become scarce for wildlife and surface disturbance must be prohibited, BLM would 

have retained the ability to prevent surface disturbing activities while still allowing lessees to access 

mineral resources through directional drilling, etc. Without NSO stipulations at the outset, BLM cedes a 

portion of its ability to exert maximum management authority in the future where appropriate. 

While we disagree with BLM’s interpretation that BLM has little authority to prevent surface occupancy 

once a lease is issued, if this continues to be BLM’s position, then it is even more critical that NSO be 

placed on all parcels available for leasing at the planning stage. This is particularly important with respect 

to leases that could threaten important wildlife habitat or use areas, water resources, recreation areas, 

riparian and wetland areas, wild, scenic or recreational river corridors or potential corridors, ACECs, 

archeological, historical or paleontological resources that have not been fully withdrawn from leasing. 

Placing NSO stipulations on parcels available for future leasing does not mean that surface occupancy 

could not be allowed on lease parcels. It simply gives BLM the authority to protect resources should the 

need arise in the future. We urge BLM in the Final EIS to include NSO stipulations on all parcels which 

will be available for future leasing. 

Response: BLM’s policy is to issue leases with the least restrictive stipulations necessary to protect the 

surface resource values within the lease area. Issuing all new leases with an NSO stipulation is not 

consistent with this policy nor is it consistent with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 2000, or the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The statutes direct the issuance of oil 

and gas leases for the purpose of developing and producing oil and gas resources in an environmentally 

sound manner for the public good. Encumbering all new leases with an NSO stipulation would, by and 

large, not facilitate the “develop and produce” intent of these statutes. Under the various alternatives, the 

draft EIS/RMP does identify areas to be subject to NSO stipulations. It also identifies areas to be 

unavailable for leasing.

Comment: We also urge BLM to withdraw certain areas from all future oil and gas drilling and 

production, including the Ryegrass area, the Cottonwood area, the Fontenelle elk winter range, and the 

upper Green area north of Warren Bridge. Allowing leasing for oil and gas on 70 percent of the resource 

area is unacceptable.

Response: The areas available for oil and gas leasing, and subject to NSO stipulations, have been revised 

in the final EIS. 

Pinedale RMP A27-265 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: This NSO designation applies to basically everything north of Pinedale. Designation only 

prevents surface occupancy on BLM owned surface rights. However, as I was told yesterday by BLM, 

they will lease mineral rights in these areas regardless of who owns the surface. This simply means that 

drilling companies will be coming to drill the federal minerals on private property in this area.

Response: The NSO designation would apply to federal lands and to all federal mineral estates within the 

NSO area.

Comment: PAGE: 2-47 to 2-48 SECTION: 2.5.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete or revise NSO 

areas EXPLANATION: Large block NSO suffers from a number of technical and legal problems. North 

block is mostly private land and cannot be enforced. Most of the area is already leased. Map 1-3. Thus 

there is no “large block NSO.” The NSO areas do not correspond to identified habitat areas, thus the 

stated objective of habitat and migration routes are not supported.

Response: The areas available for oil and gas leasing, and subject to NSO stipulations, have been revised 

in the final EIS. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-48 SECTION: 2.5.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise Map 2-29 to remove 

NSO from private lands. North segment is almost entirely private land and should not be classified as 

NSO, because BLM lacks jurisdiction. EXPLANATION: As a general matter, NSO is intended to protect 

specific resources, soils, water quality or endangered species and are traditionally tailored to specific 

areas within the lease. The RMP use of a NSO block area conflicts with approved use of NSO and is not 

based on the information found in the RMP.

Response: The RMP only has jurisdiction over the BLM-administered federal lands and minerals within 

the planning area. The map depicting the Large-Block NSO includes all ownership only for map clarity. It 

does not intend to imply that private or state minerals are encumbered by the designation. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-48 SECTION: 2.5.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: BLM cannot 

force a non-lessee to drill an offsetting well or to lease federal land. Drainage discussion fails to address 

the situation in the north NSO area where most of the land is privately owned. In this situation, BLM 

cannot claim compensatory royalties, since there is no federal lessee. Moreover, BLM has imposed a 

leasing moratorium on the federal land so again there is little opportunity for BLM to identify drainage or 

recover funds to the U.S. Treasury.

Response: You are correct. BLM cannot force a non-lessee to drill an offsetting well or to lease federal 

land. BLM can, however, force the holder of a lease with NSO restriction to develop an offsetting well 

under the conditions on page 2-48 of the draft EIS. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-49 SECTION: 2.5.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: About 1⁄2 of 

the land base is privately owned. Map 2-9 implies inaccurately that the area to be withdrawn from mineral 

leasing is public land. BLM cannot limit development on the private land. See Comment Ch. 2-86 infra. 

Response: The RMP only has jurisdiction over the BLM-administered federal lands and minerals within 

the planning area. The map depicting the Large-Block NSO includes all ownership only for map clarity. It 

does not intend to imply that private or state minerals are encumbered by the designation. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-121, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Objective 3 ([Large Block] 

(strikeout) NSO Areas) Make federal lands and minerals as depicted on Map 2-9 available for oil and gas 

leasing with NSO stipulations where BLM determines that the soils are hazardous or too steep for 

development [(205,100 acres)] (strikeout). EXPLANATION: NSO areas need to be based on specific 

A27-266 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

NSO criteria that justify no surface occupancy. Imposing NSO on an area of land is a withdrawal, State of 

Wyoming v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 277 F. Supp.2d 1197, 1236 (D. Wyo. 2002) rev’d and vacated on 

other grounds (“one could not meaningfully explore or drill for oil and gas without access by road into the 

roadless areas.”). As proposed the NSO does not conform to NSO criteria and violates FLPMA 

withdrawal requirements. RMP can cure this problem only by documenting the need for NSO. As written 

it does not meet criteria. NSO block does not conform to IM 99-51 drainage guidelines. RMP omits the 

fact that must of the land in the area is privately owned. As such, BLM cannot force a developer on 

private land to drill federal land or to lease the adjacent federal land. The drainage rules only work where 

the adjacent lands are under federal lease. Additionally, where the NSO block areas overlie private 

minerals, BLM lacks the authority to deny access to develop those minerals. Duncan Energy v. U.S. 

Forest Service, 50 F.3d 584, 589-91 (8th Cir. 1994) (federal law gave the Forest Service the power to 

regulate Forest System lands and agreed with the Forest Service that it had the limited authority to 

determine the reasonable use of the federal surface.) Denial of any surface access is not reasonable 

regulation.

Response: BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-147, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise: b. Management actions on existing 

leases within Large Block NSO Areas would be designed to protect important habitats by excluding 

surface occupancy and/or disturbance only if consistent with [to the extent this restriction does not 

violate] (strikeout) the leaseholder’s/operator’s lease rights. Management actions/projects pursuant to 

other rights, such as grazing permits and rights-of-way, or projects designed to maintain or improve 

wildlife habitat would be excluded from this restriction. EXPLANATION: Imposing a new restriction 

violates the terms of the lease by attempting to introduce new restrictions on the leasehold. Without the 

change, the leaseholder must show it violates his rights, rather than BLM ensuring that its actions respect 

those rights. Same action must also be revised to respect other permits granting surface use, such as 

rights-of-way or grazing permits.

Response: More information about the current leasing status of the unavailable and NSO areas, and how 

those leases would be managed, has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 4-76, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE or DELETE [The 

area would be available for mineral leasing with an NSO stipulation. The MAs managed under the Large 

Block NSO objectives and actions list the preceding wildlife discussion. Impacts on mineral development 

and management of existing leases would be the same as those listed in the Large Block NSO Areas 

impact discussion.] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: See Comments Ch 2 ##-26-27 (does not meet NSO 

criteria); compare Appendix 7, A7-3 which sets forth correct BLM NSO policy.

Response: The establishment of Large Block NSO is within BLM’s authority. The text as written on page 

4-76 of the draft EIS is consistent with BLM’s authority. The areas available for oil and gas leasing, and 

subject to NSO stipulations, have been revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: PAGE: G-23 CHANGE: TIMING LIMITATION - A stipulation that prohibits surface 

disturbing or disrupting activities on all or part of an oil and gas lease during specified times to protect 

identified resource values during sensitive periods (see also STIPULATION CATEGORY). 

EXPLANATION: Definition should be revised to clarify that a timing limitation stipulation is a 

constraint on leases issued under the Mineral Leasing Act that may only apply to portions of a mineral 

lease.

Response: For the purposes of the RMP, BLM feels the definition is satisfactory.

Pinedale RMP A27-267 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: PAGE: A5-3 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [• Belowground 

wellheads](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: This is an important worker safety issue. It is unlikely that 

the wellhead will affect sage grouse nest in light of other criteria. BLM cannot put worker safety at issue 

or impose condition that violates OSHA standards. More importantly, if BLM is really concerned about 

predation on sage grouse it will support predator control and make it part of RMP. As written, RMP 

sacrifices worker safety to protect predators of sage grouse.

Response: The use of below ground wellheads is a BMP measure to reduce visual resource impacts. It 

does not violate OSHA, but does fall under different OSHA standards.

Comment: PAGE: A3-4 SECTION: 2. RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [Because mitigating 

operating standards will be identified in the ROD as operational requirements, and not as general lease 

stipulations, their applicability goes beyond the oil and gas lease to any permitted activity where the 

requirement is relevant.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Regardless of whether they are called 

mitigation or operational requirements, under MLA, the lease terms and conditions convey the right to 

use BLM surface for oil and gas development. If restrictions are not in the original contract, BLM cannot 

modify the lease terms as apparently it proposes to do here. BLM cannot lawfully change lease 

stipulations. For the same reason, BLM cannot try to use conditions of approval to retrofit new lease 

terms onto existing leases. See National Wildlife Federation, et. al., 150 IBLA 385, 403 (1999) citing 

Union Oil v. Morton, 512 F.2d 743, 750-51 (9th Cir. 1975).

Response: The draft EIS states that the rights granted to existing leaseholders would be honored. You are 

correct, BLM cannot retroactively impose new stipulations on existing leases. However, 43 CFR 3101.1-2 

gives BLM full authority to impose conditions on post-lease actions, such as APD approval. The 

Secretary of the Interior has the authority and responsibility to protect the environment of public lands 

within federal oil and gas leases (Copper Valley Mach. Works, Inc. V. Andrus, 474 F. Supp. 189, 191; 

D.D.C. 1979). The Secretary may impose restrictions on lease terms in fulfillment of this responsibility 

(Natural Resources Defense Counsel V. Bergland, 458 F. Supp 925, 937; D.D.C. 1978). The Federal 

Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 requires the Secretary of the Interior to “regulate all 

surface-disturbing activities conducted pursuant to any lease issued under this Act, and shall determine 

reclamation and other actions as required in the interest of conservation of surface resources.”

Comment: PAGE: 4-187 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [The extraction of salable 

minerals would also potentially alter water tables and possibly impact stream channels if development 

were to take place close to adjacent riparian areas. This would lead to increased sediment loading and 

siltation, impacting fish populations and their prey base.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Not an impact 

from RMP, just theoretical impacts.

Response: BLM feels the statement is accurate and no revision is needed.

Comment: PAGE: 4-185 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Continued development in 

these areas could lead to short-term displacement in [not only](STRIKEOUT) native winter range 

[abandonment](STRIKEOUT) in the Wyoming Range and [but also a loss of ] (STRIKEOUT) highquality forage until reclamation has successfully returned these ranges to elk habitat. EXPLANATION: 

Experience in La Barge and Nitchey Gulch suggests that “abandonment” is unlikely. Similarly high 

quality habitat will not be lost in a permanent sense.

Response: BLM feels the statement is accurate and no revision is needed.

Comment: PAGE: 4-185 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE In all other oil and 

gas developments (Appendix 10), the assumption is that there would be between 40- and 60-acre spacing 

A27-268 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

between well bores. Many of these areas such as the Big Piney/La Barge oil and gas fields have been 

drilling for more than 50 years, and some of their spacing is much smaller than 40 acres (because the CAP 

EIS does not have a well spacing requirement). The Big Piney mule deer herd has likely experienced a 

level of disturbance that has caused it to move away from development but not completely abandon its 

winter range, similar to the findings of Sawyer (2006). Deer and elk numbers are similar to what they 

were before development. [However, there is no scientific information that supports that the mule deer 

herd would maintain its occupancy in these areas if oil and gas activities increase over 

time.](STRIKEOUT) The elk herds in the Wyoming Range have not experienced a high level of drilling 

activity or presence in their crucial winter range. Past research has shown that elk were displaced out of 

the high-quality winter ranges during drilling and construction activities [and did not return until those 

activities were completed.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Omits important information in Sawyer, 

namely that numbers are at same level. While there may not be long-term studies in Wyoming Range, 

Steamboat elk herd did return in relatively short time to Nitchey Gulch area (parturition and winter). This 

is a desert elk herd where there are relatively few of the habitat elements typically said to be necessary for 

elk, e.g. trees for hiding cover. Nevertheless elk numbers are at an all time high and elk have returned to 

areas currently producing gas. These facts suggest that the paragraph merits substantial revision to reflect 

all of the studies, rather than one opinion and selected portions of certain studies. Statement is just not 

true. Elk returned to La Barge.

Response: BLM feels the statement is accurate and no revision is needed.

Comment: PAGE: 4-75, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Existing leases with 

an ACEC or a MA could be developed under the lease terms. [Postlease actions could be encumbered by 

additional seasonal or surface use restrictions or could be subject to project relocation, depending on 

surface resource values, a site-specific NEPA analysis, and the management actions prescribed in the 

RMP, provided those prescriptions do not preclude leaseholders from legally developing their lease. 

](STRIKEOUT) The impact of seasonal restrictions (winter range, sage-grouse/raptor nesting, etc.) would 

be the same as described for corresponding restrictions under Alternative 1. Project relocation impacts 

would be the same as those described above for similar actions. EXPLANATION: Rules give BLM very 

limited authority to change well locations or otherwise limit surface use rights. 43 C.F.R. §3101.1-2. Gold 

Book best management practices are also voluntary. The Gold Book at p. 3 states: “Constraints that are 

consistent with the rights granted by the lease may be imposed on the location of access roads, well sites, 

and facility sites or the timing of geophysical exploration, well drilling, or other operations.” Operators 

may also agree to additional mitigation, typically to reduce impacts and authorize operations under EA 

rather than EIS. But as stated in the original comment, BLM cannot mandate BMPs that exceed the 

constraints found in the lease.

Response: Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-2 give BLM authority to impose stipulations on new 

leases and restrictions on post-lease actions on existing leases. Washington Office Information Bulletin 

2007-119 provides guidance concerning BLM’s authority with regard to 43 CFR 3101.1-2. To resolve 

these identified issues, BLM stated the following in the same Federal Register: “However, it is 

appropriate to establish minimum parameters within which the Bureau can specify site-specific mitigating 

measures which, by regulation, are consistent with the lease rights granted a lease. The final rulemaking 

provides that the Bureau, at a minimum, can require relocation of proposed operations by 200 meters and 

can prohibit new surface disturbance for a period of 60 days, and such requirements are consistent with 

lease rights granted. The authorized officer may grant a lease suspension in appropriate cases if new 

disturbance is prohibited under this section. Similarly, the authority of the Bureau to prescribe 

“reasonable,” but more stringent, protection measures is not affected by the final rulemaking.”

Pinedale RMP A27-269 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: PAGE: 4-48, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE EIS to reflect 

overlaps among various seasonal closures and cumulative effects. EXPLANATION: EIS fails to disclose 

restrictions and document that they are the minimum necessary. IM 2005-235; see also IM 2006-97.

Response: See footnote 5 for Tables 2-32 and 2-33 of the draft EIS.

Comment: Later in Appendix 3, the DEIS presents the following direction for evaporation ponds DEIS at 

A3-8. As with other direction proposed in the DEIS, this Mitigation measure would be discretionary and 

just states BLM’s intent without explaining how it would be accomplished. What kinds of “measures” are 

available, and how “effective” are they? Which of these “measures” would be required by BLM? Readers 

are left guessing. It is not enough to make evaporation ponds “unattractive and/or less accessible” to 

waterfowl and other birds; fully netting is needed [41].

Response: The referenced mitigation is a performance-based measure rather than a prescriptive-based 

stipulation. The statement has been modified in the final EIS to the following: “Evaporation ponds shall 

be designed and operated in a manner which deters or prevents access to birds and waterfowl. Pit netting 

is as example of measure to accomplish this requirement.”

Comment: PAGE:2-147,RECOMMENDED CHANGE:. Oil and gas developmental operations would be 

managed through performance-based stipulations and mitigations provided in Appendix 3. 

EXPLANATION: Delete a-k. Reliance on performance-based stipulations is meaningless when coupled 

with command and control terms listed above.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: PAGE: 2-118, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete withdrawal objective: [Objective 4 

Approximately 13,770 acres of new withdrawals from locatable mineral entry and land disposal would be 

pursued to protect cultural, wildlife habitat, and recreational values (Table 2-26, p. 2- 164; Map 2-34).] 

(strikeout) EXPLANATION: RMP does not document purpose and need for withdrawal in accordance 

with FLPMA. Law requires that BLM address the 12 factors supporting the withdrawal, none of which is 

found in the reasons set out in the RMP. BLM has discretion to seek a withdrawal but it does not have 

discretion not to document whether its request conforms to the statutory criteria.

Response: The 12 factors supporting withdrawal apply only to withdrawals under Section 204 (c) (2), 

withdrawals over 5,000 acres. No proposed withdrawal exceeds 5,000 acres.

Comment: PAGE: 2-115 SECTION: 2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: j. Surface occupancy would 

be prohibited within [1](strikeout) 1⁄4 mile on either side of the Sublette Cutoff Trail. EXPLANATION: 

Trail not closed except for 1⁄4 mile. RMP cannot expand without any determination as to significance, 

guidance, or impacts. Action prejudges situation.

Response: The RMP is designed to formulate management activities concerning the various resources 

within BLM’s jurisdiction in the planning area. Management of historic trails is one of those resources. 

BLM can impose additional restriction beyond the standard restriction to protect important resource 

values, as indicated in Chapter 3. The Sublette Cutoff has associated historic sites, such as Names Hill, 

that warrant additional protection.

Comment: PAGE: 2-3 SECTION: 2.2.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Specific to the oil and gas 

program, the alternatives in this draft EIS address the availability and allocation of lands for future oil and 

gas leasing, potential lease stipulations for new leases, and additional mitigation to be considered and 

A27-270 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

applied during the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) process so long as consistent with lease 

stipulations. EXPLANATION: While implied elsewhere with reference to recognizing valid existing 

rights, the RMP needs to clearly state new lease stipulations or new conditions that are inconsistent with 

the lease terms cannot be applied to existing leases. 

Response: The suggested text change has not been incorporated because 43 CFR 3101.1-2 clearly gives 

BLM the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on post-lease actions, such as APDs, even if such 

restrictions are not embedded in the lease through stipulation. 

Comment: Appendix 3 also discloses that activities allowed under the proposed alternatives will result in 

negative impacts that reduce big game herd numbers below state target numbers. While BLM commits 

itself to consulting with WGFD if this is likely to occur, there are no criteria set forth indicating what will 

trigger consultation. Furthermore, BLM completely exempts itself from requiring mitigation of these 

effects if there are prior existing rights or the activities are consistent with “multiple use of the public 

lands.” BLM continues to insist, for example, it cannot impose conditions of use after a lease is sold. “It is 

important to recognize that the authorized officer has limited authority to modify the site location and 

design of facilities, control of the rate of development and timing of activities, or require other mitigation 

under sections 2 and 6 of the [standard lease terms] (BLM form 3100-11) and 43 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) § 3101.1-2.” A7-1. This is inaccurate, as BLM still has authority reserved in the lease 

agreement which permits it to regulate surface disturbing activities to some degree, including imposition 

of mitigation requirements; and indeed BLM has a duty to protect the natural environment even after a 

lease has been issued. BLM cannot get out from under this legal duty merely by stating repeatedly in the 

DEIS that it doesn’t have the authority to require mitigation of impacts.

Response: WGFD is a cooperating agency working with BLM on the development of this RMP, as well 

as on project-level EAs/EISs. WGFD also has a biologist assigned to the Pinedale Field Office to review 

and work with BLM on mitigation efforts for site-specific projects. The draft EIS/RMP does not state that 

BLM cannot mitigate proposed actions on existing leases. It does state that BLM cannot preclude a holder 

of existing lease from exercising his/her legal right to explore, develop, and produce the lease (Note: for 

the purposes of this RMP, existing lease means those leases in effect at the time the ROD for the 

EIS/RMP is approved by the Wyoming State Director of the BLM). Per 43 CFR 3101.1-2, BLM certainly 

does have the authority and does impose conditions of approval on exploration, development, and 

production activities in existing leases.

Comment: Section 4.7.1 - Leasable Minerals Assumptions: On page 4-46, the BLM suggests as one of its 

assumptions that post-lease actions, including APDs and ROWS, could be encumbered with new timing 

limitations or controlled use restrictions from the new RMP. When applying site-specific conditions of 

approval, the BLM must not impose restrictions that are inconsistent with APC’s rights under its existing 

leases.

Response: Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-2 gives the authorized officer the authority to “impose 

such reasonable measures as may be required to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land 

uses, or users not addressed in the lease stipulations at the time operations are proposed.” The regulations 

give leaseholders or operators the right to appeal imposed requirements they believe are not “reasonable 

measures”.

Mitigation, Monitoring, Restrictions, Best Management Practices (BMPs), 

Conditions of Approval (COAs) 

Comment: Furthermore, there is no obligation or authorization in BLM’s charter to concern itself with 

operator cost of doing business. Statements that implementation of emissions mitigation measures will 

result in greater operating costs 2 or that impacts from cultural resource management actions will increase 

Pinedale RMP A27-271 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

well development costs13 or that migratory bird exclusion devices over pits designed to withstand snow 

loading could impact economic viability of some wells14 have no place in BLM planning.

Response: Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3162.1 state: “The operating rights owner or operator, as 

appropriate, shall comply with applicable laws and regulations; with the lease terms, Onshore Oil and Gas 

Orders, NTLs; and with other orders and instructions of the authorized officer. These include, but are not 

limited to, conducting all operations in a manner which ensures the proper handling, measurement, 

disposition, and site security of leasehold production; which protects other natural resources and 

environmental quality; which protects life and property; and which results in maximum ultimate economic 

recovery of oil and gas with minimum waste and with minimum adverse effect on ultimate recovery of 

other mineral resources (emphasis added). BLM can and does place reasonable restriction on oil and gas 

operations, but also must be cognizant of the impacts of those restrictions, one of which is reducing the 

maximum economic recovery. The purpose of Chapter 4 is to identify impacts of the various actions 

proposed for the various resources. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-120, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: c. Exceptions would be considered to allow 

year-round drilling and development operations on new and existing leases in the Jonah, Pinedale 

Anticline, Big Piney-La Barge, Deer Hills, and Castle Creek oil and gas fields that are currently 

encumbered by seasonal restrictions. Such exceptions would be subject to additional environmental 

analysis to assure consistency with RMP. [and the leaseholder/operator implementing offsetting 

mitigation such as, but not limited to: habitat enhancement; development of a liquids (condensate and 

produced water) gathering system to reduce truck traffic; remote telemetry; drilling of multiple wells from 

new and existing pads; directional drilling; noise reduction for drilling and completion operations; 

flareless completion; tier 4 or better emission equipment; bussing of crews; concentration of 

development; closed drilling systems; use of transportation plan that reduces road density; compensation 

mitigation; and monitoring of wildlife populations.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: Seasonal conditions 

listed in RMP not based on criteria found in rules or Gold Book. These need to be deleted. Waiver of 

seasonal lease stipulation need not and should not be conditioned on assuming some other expensive 

condition. Nor does the action require that the offset be connected to the basis for the seasonal stipulation. 

These are just a list of arbitrary new conditions. They cannot be defended and should be dropped.

Response: The stipulations, mitigation, and COAs in the RMP are rooted in the Wyoming BLM Standard 

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations issued under an Instruction Memorandum (IM) in the mid-1980s and in 

BMP IMs 2005-033 and 2007-021 issued by the BLM Washington Office. The Gold Book is a guideline. 

It is not a ruling. Federal regulations at 43 CFR 31001.1-2 give BLM the authority to impose restrictions 

on post-lease actions, such as APDs.

Comment: The BLM must also recognize that there are technical and economic limitations to the COAs 

and stipulations the agency suggests, particularly on existing leases. The BLM lacks the authority to 

impose mitigation measures that are not technically or economically feasible. Once the BLM has issued 

an oil and gas lease conveying the right to access and develop the leasehold, the BLM cannot later impose 

unreasonable mitigation measures that take away those rights. See Conner v. Burford, 84 F.2d 1441, 

1449-50 (9th Cir. 1988); 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2 (2006) (BLM can impose only “reasonable mitigation 

measures . . . to minimize adverse impacts . . . to the extent consistent with lease rights granted”). There is 

no indication or analysis in the RMP DEIS whether many of the proposed objectives are technologically 

and economically feasible. For example, BLM’s requirement to minimize noise-generating activity could 

be construed as requiring the imposition of significant mitigation measures, regardless of their feasibility. 

See RMP DEIS, pg. 2-101-102.

Response: Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-3 state: “The authorized officer may require stipulations 

as conditions of lease issuance”, and as previous stated, 43 CFR 3101.1-2 gives the authorized officer the 

A27-272 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

authority to impose such reasonable measures as may be required to minimize adverse impacts to other 

resource values, land uses, or users not addressed in the lease stipulations at the time operations are 

proposed. The regulations give leaseholders or operators the right to appeal imposed requirements they 

believe are not “reasonable measures”.

Comment: The federal oil and gas lease grants the lessee the right to extract the oil and gas resource. If 

BLM deems it necessary to place additional restrictions on the rights of lessees in order to protect 

environmental resources, stipulations are appended to the lease. Stipulations clarify BLM’s intent to 

protect known resources or resource values. The lessee is required to conduct operations in a manner that 

minimizes adverse [environmental] impacts and take reasonable measures deemed necessary by the lessor 

(BLM) to accomplish this intent. These prudent measures are applied through a Condition of Approval 

(COA) during the permit process for oil and gas development. 

The COAs must be reasonable. This means they must be technically possible to accomplish, and they 

must allow the exercise of lease rights. They must also be plainly worded and justified by the NEPA 

process. A COA must not prevent an applicant form proceeding with development for either economic or 

technical reasons.”

Comment–Exceptions to COAs will be granted only if implementation is technically infeasible, or (2) is 

economically prohibitive, or (3) an environmentally preferable alternative is available; and the alternative 

proposed by the lessee/permittee fully satisfies the objective/outcome of the lease stipulation or operating 

standard. This has the potential to prohibit the operator from exercising lease rights in situations where 

implementing a COA renders the project uneconomic, which must be avoided. 

Response: The referenced exception process is found in Appendix 3 of the draft EIS and is prefaced with 

the statement, “The permitting process, in conjunction with the greater flexibility afforded by the 

proposed performance-based lease stipulations and operating standards that are focused on resource 

management objectives, should result in the need for fewer exceptions”, which has been modified in the 

final EIS to the following, “The permitting process, in conjunction with the greater flexibility afforded by 

the proposed performance-based lease stipulations and operating standards that are focused on resource 

management objectives, as opposed to employing a broad range of prescriptive restrictions, should result 

in the need for fewer exceptions.” 

This exception process does not prohibit an operator’s right to develop his/her lease. In fact, the draft EIS 

emphatically recognizes and acknowledges leaseholder rights, see page 2-9. To help ensure that an 

operator’s rights are protected, Appendix 3 describes the exception process. It also sets the criteria that 

must be met before an “exception” to a lease stipulation or operating standard would be granted.

Comment: All alternatives create the illusion that oil and gas development cannot be regulated once 

leases are let. We all know better as evidenced in the original Pinedale RMP when BLM legally applied 

Conditions of Approval on APDs for existing leases to protect wildlife habitat. 

Response: You are correct. BLM can apply certain conditions of approval on APDs. Federal regulations 

at 43 CFR 3101.1-2 state: “A lessee shall have the right to use so much of the leased lands as is necessary 

to explore for, drill for, mine, extract, remove, and dispose of all the leased resource in a leasehold subject 

to: Stipulations attached to the lease; restrictions deriving from specific nondiscretionary statutes; and 

such reasonable measures as may be required by the authorized officer to minimize adverse impacts to 

other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the lease stipulations at the time operations are 

proposed. To the extent consistent with lease rights granted, such reasonable measures may include, but 

are not limited to, modification to siting or design of facilities, timing of operations, and specification of 

interim and final reclamation measures.”

Pinedale RMP A27-273 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: I propose the Record of Decision be void of the following concepts: 

1. Seasonal drilling stipulations. I support the development of new technologies and best 

management practices that protect wildlife without restrictive seasonal stipulations. 

2. Mandated directional drilling and clustered development in an RMP. Such stipulations are more 

appropriate in subsequent project level NEPA processes.

Response: The RMP builds a framework for subsequent project-level NEPA documents. Such a 

framework includes suggested and required mitigation measures, as well as best management practices. 

As such, it is appropriate for the RMP to set the framework for measures that could reduce impacts

Comment: Despite these clear instructions, the Pinedale RMP appears to make several management 

decisions that are most appropriately left to site-specific authorizations. For example, under both 

Alternatives 3 and 4, the BLM appears to impose specific operational limitations on oil and gas 

development, including the use of on-lease water disposal pits (Alternatives 3 and 4) and the mandatory 

imposition of best management practices (BMPs) regardless of their applicability or feasibility 

(Alternative 3, pgs. 2-81 - 2-83). Compare Alternative 4, pg. 2-120 (BMPs will be applied to the extent 

possible and practicable). The BLM should not utilize the land use planning process to impose sitespecific conditions of approval or unreasonably limit future management actions by including limiting 

language in the Pinedale RMP.

Response: The management actions proposed in the alternatives are appropriate for the land use planning 

level. The document says that BMPs would be applied to protect resources, not that BMPs would be 

required regardless of their usefulness. BMPs by their nature are analyzed and applied on a site-specific 

basis.

Comment: There needs to be an effort to mitigate what has happened in the Jonah and Anticline fields to 

wildlife. The Wind River Front and the Upper Green is the prime area to mitigate what has happened to 

the industrial zone once known as open, undisturbed desert. 

Response: Management of federal lands and mineral estates along the Wind River Front and in the Upper 

Green are addressed in the final EIS.

Comment: We support mandatory use of new science-based technologies for restoration, clustering 

industrialization, directional drilling and other ways to minimize impacts in developed fields. Those alone 

will not sustain wildlife, landscapes, air and water or our way of life. We need and demand more and 

better planning before projects are developed to weigh and balance other important resource values 

against the payoff from more drilling. Some measure of development prerogative must be foregone by a 

slower pace, phased development and permanent withdrawal of important areas from development if 

BLM is to truly manage for multiple uses in the Pinedale RMP area. The use of more ACEC descriptions 

would be appropriate to protect areas of known importance. 

Response: The RMP sets the framework for project- and site-specific NEPA analysis and provides the 

impetus for the use of BMPs. Not all BMPs are appropriate or necessary in all situations all the time. The 

project- and site-specific NEPA would determine the appropriate measures for that project. The various 

alternatives in the draft EIS/RMP provide opportunities for withholding areas from oil and gas leasing on 

a long-term basis. Consistent with the overall objective for each alternative, the RMP does identify a 

variety of ACECs. 

Comment: Let’s insist on the best technology and practices from our operators, not just tinkering in the 

new technologies. Why not raise the bar and work ethics of the gas industry?

A27-274 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: Appendices 3, 5, and 18 of the draft EIS do establish best management practices to be used. 

Specific implementation of such practices would be developed through site-specific or project-specific 

NEPA documents.

Comment: Reclamation: There is no substantive information in the reclamation discussion in Appendix 

3. Based on the magnitude and extent of projected impacts to big game animals resulting from energy 

development alone, the BLM must provide a more thorough discussion of reclamation. Standards, seed 

mixes, invasive weed control and time for recovery all need to be discussed. A large part of persistence of 

big game populations in the Pinedale Resource Management Area will depend upon the success of 

returning disturbed areas to productive sagebrush communities. Reclamation to a functional sagebrush 

community will be a slow and challenging task in the arid environs characteristic of the Pinedale 

Resource Management Area. The DEIS (4-182) indicates that impacts from buried pipelines could last up 

to 30 or 40 years and Baker (2006) reports a 50-100 year time frame for recovery of a sagebrush 

community. In order to fulfill the disclosure mandates of NEPA, the BLM must provide a more thorough, 

realistic discussion of reclamation requirements and limitations. 

Response: The RMP establishes the framework for reclamation processes, but is not intended to provide 

site- or project-specific standards or procedures. Specific standards, seed mixes, invasive weed control, 

and recovery time would be developed through project-level EAs or EISs. Appendix 3 has been revised in 

the final EIS. 

Comment: 5) Adopt and strictly enforce meaningful mitigation and monitoring requirements

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted.

Comment: 7) Require industry to reclaim all disturbed areas and provide sufficient bonds to protect 

taxpayers from cleanup and restoration costs. 

Response: Reclamation of all disturbed areas is required. Bonds are not required for oil and gas 

development and BLM does not have the authority to institute this requirement.

Comment: The BLM also appropriately recognizes that “[s]urface use and timing restrictions resulting 

from this RMP cannot be applied to existing leases.” See RMP DEIS, pg. 2-8. The BLM, however, 

attempts to limit this statement by suggesting the BLM could impose conditions of approval (“COAs”) to 

“mitigate potential impacts from oil and gas operations.” The BLM must not attempt to use site-specific 

COAs as a means to enforce new management objectives or stipulations on existing leases. The BLM 

cannot adjust a lessee’s valid and existing rights. Congress made it clear when it enacted FLPMA that 

nothing therein, or in the land use plans developed thereunder, was intended to terminate, modify, or alter 

any valid or existing property rights. See 43 U.S.C. § 1701 (2006).

Response: Federal regulations give the BLM the authority to impose COA on post-lease actions. 

Specifically, 43 CFR 3101.1-2 states: “A lessee shall have the right to use so much of the leased lands as 

is necessary to explore for, drill for, mine, extract, remove, and dispose of all the leased resource in a 

leasehold subject to: Stipulations attached to the lease; restrictions deriving from specific 

nondiscretionary statutes; and such reasonable measures as may be required by the authorized officer to 

minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the lease 

stipulations at the time operations are proposed” (emphasis added). Attaching a timing limitation COA to 

an APD or Sundry Notice approval is consistent with this regulation.

Pinedale RMP A27-275 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: Section 2.3.16 - Compensation (Offsite) Mitigation: Past BLM policy makes it clear offsite 

mitigation must be voluntary. “Offsite mitigation is to be entirely voluntary on the part of the applicant.” 

Instruction Memorandum 2005-069 (Sept. 30, 2006). The BLM cannot require offsite mitigation. Offsite 

mitigation is rarely appropriate for oil and gas projects. Oil and gas development is a central part of its 

mission, and the federal lessees are required to maximize oil and gas on their leases. Mineral development 

is a designated principal and major use of BLM land under FLPMA. 43 U.S.C. § 1702(1) (2006). The 

BLM in Wyoming long ago recognized that “compensation, as a form of off-site mitigation, is not to be a 

routine operation of BLM in Wyoming.” See BLM Wyoming Instruction Memorandum WY-96-21 (Dec. 

14, 1995) (emphasis added). The BLM must redraft Section 2.3.16 to clearly indicate that offsite 

compensation must be voluntary and that offsite mitigation is not appropriate for every natural gas 

development project.

Response: The RMP alternatives make no attempt to make offsite mitigation a requirement. A statement 

clarifying Section 2.3.16 of the draft EIS has been added in the final EIS.

Comment: I therefore strongly oppose this Alternative and support instead Alternative 3 with the 

following revision included in its final form: • Mitigation measures must be concrete, binding, have 

distinct time frames for achievement, have clear accountability for expenses. and be successful or else 

heavy fines will be incurred and leaseholder rights restricted. Fines shall be directly used to buyback 

leases in undeveloped areas or for development of renewable energy sources.

Response: Mitigation measures are, in fact, binding, not only on permittees, leaseholders, ROW holders, 

project proponents, etc., but also on BLM. Where applicable, mitigation does typically have 

implementation time frames. Depending on the specific mitigation, time frames typically have target 

implementation dates. Unless BLM is funding a mitigation measure, BLM does not have jurisdiction over 

how much or how little is spent on it. BLM does, however, have jurisdiction over whether or not the 

implementation meets the intended objective. BLM does have jurisdiction to require bonds, to attach 

bonds, issue notices of violation, issue trespass notices, issue shut down (cease and desist) orders, and in 

the case of oil and gas operations, make monetary assessments for certain violations. BLM does not have 

the authority to retain the monetary assessments, or to obligate them in any way. This includes funding 

lease buybacks or development of renewable energy sources. Such monetary obligations reside with 

Congress and the President. 

Comment: I therefore strongly oppose this Alternative and support instead Alternative 3 with the 

following revision included in its final form: • Mitigation will be monitored by third parties, not affiliated 

with or represented in any way by Energy company employees (i.e. PAWGs with energy representatives 

included and directed by federal restraints are NOT adequate means of monitoring the success of 

mitigation measures). The public shall be kept informed of the monitoring parties’ findings on a monthly 

basis.

Response: This is not a planning-level decision, but is one that could typically be initiated and 

implemented through project-level EAs or EISs. Regardless of who performs the mitigation monitoring, 

BLM retains full authority and responsibility for ensuring that parties conducting the monitoring are 

qualified, that the monitoring meets the required standards, and that the results are accurate. Much of the 

mitigation monitoring is completed on an annual basis. It is neither reasonable nor practical to provide 

monthly disclosures.

Comment: 5) Adopt and strictly enforce meaningful mitigation and monitoring requirements.

A27-276 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted.

Comment: While we prefer the management plan laid out in Alternative Three, we believe it needs 

improvements to truly reflect your multiple use mandate and to provide the necessary protection for the 

significant cultural resources under your control. Therefore, we would urge you to adopt the following 

additional safeguards to Alternative Three: • Insist that industry employ the cleanest technologies and the 

best environmentally protective practices. 

Response: These suggestions are not something that would result in planning-level decisions, but they 

certainly could be initiated and implemented through project-level EAs or EISs. BLM is required to 

adhere to the Clean Air Act, but does not have the regulatory authority to mandate permittees, 

leaseholders, ROW holders, or project proponent adherence. That regulatory authority resides with the 

EPA and Wyoming DEQ. Appendix 5 of the draft EIS provides a listing of best management practices 

that would be applicable to whatever alternative or modified alternative is ultimately implemented.

Comment: BLM must develop requirements on industry that will require it to invest at least three percent 

of those revenues in environmental repair of damages done, in development of methods to continually 

reduce environmental damages done, and finally, in research and development designed to bring on line 

radically improved methods and equipment that will produce continually lessening environmental 

damages. Absent that, the RMP must stipulate that industry will not be allowed outside the Jonah and the 

PAPA.

Response: It is beyond BLM’s authority and the authority of this plan to require industry to invest any 

specified amount on reclamation. BLM does have the authority and does require operators to reclaim the 

surface disturbance caused by their operations. Additionally, BLM has the authority and does require 

operators to post bonds to ensure their compliance. Valid leases issued under the current RMP must be 

honored. BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of valid existing leases. 

BLM’s Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) recently conducted a review of the 

RFD (June 28, 2007) and concluded that the numbers presented in the draft EIS are current, valid, and 

applicable. The draft EIS presents four alternatives that range from strong commodity production to 

strong environmental protection. The plan does take the nation’s energy needs into account, but also takes 

the other resources values within the planning area into account, as required by numerous laws and 

regulations.

Comment: We engage in this lengthy and somewhat detailed review of relevant law and policy so as to 

emphasize that the BLM certainly has the authority, and indeed an obligation, to fully protect the natural 

environment even in the 70 percent of the Pinedale Field Office that has already been leased and 

especially in Unavailable Areas and Large Block NSO Areas because the specific, stated objectives of the 

RMP in these areas are to provide such protection. Clearly the BLM should provide a clear, unequivocal 

statement of the degree to which it has retained rights under the standard lease form and specify precisely 

the means by which it will exercise those retained rights so as to meet the management objectives for the 

various oil and gas management areas specified in the RMP. Absent such clear statements of what precise 

management will apply to existing leases it is difficult to see how the oil and gas management areas can 

achieve the stated management direction applicable to them with any assurance.

Response: Page 2-8 states: “based on site- or project-specific environmental analysis, conditions of 

approval (COA) could be applied at the APD and Sundry Notice stage, and at subsequent development 

Pinedale RMP A27-277 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

stages, to mitigate potential impacts from oil and gas operations within existing lease areas, providing the 

leaseholder’s right to develop the lease remains intact.”

Comment: Drillers better have to do aggressive and immediate reclamation where an area is no longer in 

operation due to the shear numbers of wells.

Response: Oil and gas operators are required to reclaim the portions of their disturbance not needed for 

production operations as soon as possible after drilling operations are completed. Reclamation standards 

and procedures are evolving and are more explicitly addressed in project-specific NEPA documents.

Comment: Offsite remedial projects are a buy-off and should not replace on-site rehabs. Our “Nations 

energy/mineral needs are very important, BUT same is true for responsible conservation of “our” 

resources and protection of “our” private property and equal rights under “our” laws. Many more 

details/comments could be included herein and above, but such would not become “concise” as required 

for these general comments/ideas and minimal efforts to explain any oremis/basis therefore. 

Response: Implementation of offsite mitigation projects does not absolve leaseholders/operators from 

reclaiming the disturbance resulting from their operations. Rather, it is intended to augment and/or 

enhance habitats in offsite areas while the onsite reclamation is being completed and reaches suitable 

habitat function.

Comment: The BLM sometimes invokes its regulation at 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2 (see quote from RMP 

DEIS cited above) as imposing limits on its ability to condition development, claiming that (in the 

absence of a stipulation or non-discretionary statute) it can only impose “reasonable measures” 

demanding no more than that lease operations be moved no more than 200 meters, leasehold operations 

be prohibited for no more than 60 days, or that operations be moved off the leasehold. This is an incorrect 

view of this regulation. In adopting this regulation, BLM commented that “the authority of the Bureau to 

prescribe ‘reasonable,’ but more stringent, protection measures is not affected by the final rulemaking.” 

Oil and Gas Leasing, Geothermal Resources Leasing, 53 Fed. Reg. 17,340, 17,341 (May 16, 1988). Quite 

simply, this regulation establishes a floor, not a ceiling. Furthermore, as noted above, the specific terms of 

the standard lease certainly do not limit BLM’s authority to this degree. It may be worth noting that the 

standard lease form and the regulation were both adopted in 1988; BLM certainly developed one in full 

recognition of the other. Consequently, the standard lease and the 3101.1-2 regulation must be considered 

together to determine the BLM’s retained rights. The 3101.1-2 regulation does not stand as the sole word 

as to what constitutes “reasonable measures,” and in any event it too hardly constrains the BLM’s rights 

to condition development (reasonable measures “are not limited to” modifying siting or design of 

facilities, timing of operations, and specification of reclamation, and the specific reasonable measures are 

“at a minimum” of what is within BLM’s authority). Perhaps the BLM recognizes these broad retained 

rights. In a moment of candor in the RMP DEIS, BLM stated: “The oil and gas lease is a binding 

agreement between BLM and the lessee that does not authorize subsequent surface disturbing activity. All 

surface disturbing activities . . . require additional authorization(s) issued subsequent to leasing.” A3-2. 

The BLM should expand on this statement so as to make clear that it also retains-and will exert-the 

various rights described herein.

Response: As page 2-8 of the draft EIS states, holders of existing oil and gas leases have a valid legal 

right to explore, develop, and produce the lease. As provided in 43 CFR 3101.1-2, BLM does have the 

authority to impose “reasonable restrictions” to post-lease actions where the lease is not encumbered with 

stipulations. The draft EIS does provide for opportunities for BLM to mitigate impacts on existing leases 

— please refer to action items b and c under Objectives 2 and 3 on pages 2-55, 2-82, 2-83, and 2-120, 2-

121 of the draft EIS. Page 2-8 states: “Based on site- or project-specific environmental analysis, 

conditions of approval (COA) could be applied at the APD and Sundry Notice stage, and at subsequent 

A27-278 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

development stages, to mitigate potential impacts from oil and gas operations within existing lease areas, 

providing the leaseholder’s right to develop the lease remains intact”.

Comment: As recognized in BLM Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2005-069 (Sept. 30, 

2006), “Offsite mitigation is to be entirely voluntary on the part of the applicant.” The BLM does not 

have the authority to require offsite mitigation. Further, offsite mitigation is not appropriate for most oil 

and gas projects. Oil and gas development is an integral part of the BLM’s mission. Federal oil and gas 

leases have not just the right, but the obligation to maximize the recovery of oil and gas resources from 

public lands, and should not be required to find offsite mitigation every time development operations are 

proposed. As recognized by the BLM Wyoming State Director in 1995, “compensation, as a form of offsite mitigation, is not to be a routine operation of BLM in Wyoming.” See BLM Wyoming Instruction 

Memorandum WY-96-21 (Dec. 14, 1995). The BLM must redraft Section 2.3.16 to clarify that offsite 

compensation is entirely voluntary and that it is not appropriate for every natural gas development project 

within the Pinedale Resource Area. 

Further, the BLM should clearly indicate in the RMP that offsite mitigation will be based upon 

assessments of site-specific strategies designed to ensure long-term species viability rather than the 

funding of studies and project administration. Finally, the BLM should develop and endorse policies 

enabling offsite mitigation to be effectively used across agency boundaries.

Response: BLM is bound by the requirements of the cited IM as long as that IM remains in effect. 

Consistent with the IM, the text at 2.3.16 of the draft EIS, “proposed by the operator”, infers that the 

program is voluntary. To provide further clarity to Section 2.3.16, the following statement has been added 

to the end of the first paragraph in this section of the final EIS: “Consistent with BLM IM WO-2005-069, 

the initiation of compensatory (offsite) mitigation is a voluntary action on the part of the applicant.” 

Comment: I am a property owner in the Green River Ranches area, and am very concerned about the 

availability of clean water for my land and animals. Make no mistake--I am not against oil drilling in the 

U.S. I am, however, very aware that the outdated, money saving techniques most oil companies prefer to 

use when drilling for oil leave the land barren and highly toxic with chemicals and spilled oil. Also, the 

use of highly toxic chemicals mixed with water at & below ground level--ALWAYS leads to future 

groundwater and runoff contamination.

Response: The nearest existing federal oil and gas lease to the Green River Ranches area is located on the 

west side of the Green River about 3⁄4 of a mile west of the Warren Bridge Campground. Under 

Alternatives 3 and 4, the federal land and mineral estate in the Green River Ranches area would either be 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing or new leases would be unavailable for surface occupancy. The 

specifics of drilling operations would be addressed through project-level or site-specific NEPA analysis. 

BLM does require operators to use fresh water drilling techniques to drill through all known fresh water 

aquifers encountered. BLM also requires the operators to set surface casing through the fresh water zones 

and then cement the backside of the surface casing from the total depth of the casing back to the surface 

to seal the encountered aquifers for the well bore.

Comment: Page 2-13 BLM policy requires that offsite mitigation many only be used on a voluntary 

basis; however, the implication is that approval will be denied without it. When offsite mitigation is being 

considered as a design feature of the applicant’s submission, BLM’s NEPA analysis should: 1) evaluate 

the need for offsite mitigation, 2) consider the effectiveness of offsite mitigation in reducing, resolving, or 

eliminating impacts of the proposed project(s), and 3) comparatively analyze the proposal with and 

without the offsite mitigation. It must also be acknowledged that unless a proposed action would result in 

“unnecessary and undue” degradation, such mitigation requirements would go beyond BLM’s authority to 

require new mitigation.

Pinedale RMP A27-279 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Response: BLM must operate in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and directives. This 

includes IM 2005-069 until it expires or is rescinded. The Compensatory (offsite) Mitigation section in 

Chapter 2 of the draft EIS plainly states: “Compensatory or offsite mitigation proposed by oil and gas or 

other operators could be considered . . .” (emphasis added). 

Comment: Appendix 3 sets out mitigation guidelines and operating standards applicable to surface 

disturbing activities using a performance based approach. Under Draft Pinedale RMP alternatives 2, 3 & 

4, mitigation may be required based on environmental analysis conducted during the permitting process 

for individual or field drilling proposals but is not explicitly required as a condition of obtaining a lease 

(page A3-1). BLM states that the guidelines may be employed to protect resources during oil and gas 

exploration, development and reclamation (page A3-2). However, the language used by BLM to describe 

the operating standards and mitigation guidelines does not adequately describe when, where and what 

actions are required to meet the desired objectives. Rather, BLM states a desired effect or outcome and 

then lists multiple possible mitigation actions that may or may not be applied. This lack of clarity 

undermines BLM’s ability to enforce important resource management goals identified in the NEPA 

analysis and erodes any certainty for industry, the local public, cooperating agencies, and others as to 

what mitigation exactly will be required with future leasing and development under the new Pinedale 

RMP. 

BLM introduces the use of “performance based stipulations and standards” in place of, and in addition to, 

more traditional prescriptive based stipulations. BLM states that this change is intended to provide for 

“the implementation of adaptive management principles.”(page A3-1). BLM further asserts that the focus 

on outcomes for resources “would ensure that mitigations are effective while simultaneously allowing the 

application of new environmental science to natural resource systems and land use plan decisions. 

Monitoring would ensure that adaptive management principles are adhered to and that necessary changes 

to operating standards can be made in a timely and efficient manner.” (page A3-1). Incorporation of 

adaptive management principles by the BLM in mitigation efforts is in theory laudable; however, the 

interchangeable use of “performance or outcome based objectives” and “adaptive management” leads to 

confusion about actual requirements and management strategy. When and where are actions required? 

What actions are necessary for successful implementation? Who is responsible for funding and 

monitoring and on what timeline? And what happens when desired outcomes are not achieved? 

Recommendation: BLM must clear up confusion regarding its mitigation approach by including a 

straightforward definition of the “performance based approach” to management and how it relates to 

adaptive management. BLM must then address all aspects of successful adaptive management and 

provide detailed adaptive process requirements, rather than using it as an empty catchphrase without any 

substantive procedures and requirements. If the BLM intends to use the performance based approach as a 

synonym for adaptive management, the RMP must clearly state this and follow through with appropriate 

use of scientifically recognized adaptive management techniques. 

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

authorize any on-the-ground activities. To be effective, mitigation must be tailored to the specific project 

or proposal. Specific mitigation would be designed at the project implementation EIS level and would be 

included in the ROD requirements for project-level developments such as the Jonah or Pinedale Anticline 

fields. This mitigation would include the specifics suggested in the comment.

Comment: Page 4-250 “The implementation of BLM’s mitigation guidelines, restrictions on surface use, 

continued implementation of healthy rangeland standards, and monitoring efforts would provide 

protection to soils on federal lands and lands with federal subsurface minerals, which would help reduce 

cumulative effects.” Comment: Chevron strongly supports the use of voluntary surface BMP’s and 

effective implementation of required surface use mitigation, but the relationship of the oil and gas BMPs, 

A27-280 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

operating standards, and oil and gas mitigation guidelines to the healthy rangeland standards is unclear 

and must be explained. BLM has not, and should, discuss ongoing monitoring efforts and their results in 

the FEIS.

Response: BMPs can be implemented as voluntary measures that the operator commits to as you suggest, 

but they also can be required by BLM. The referenced text does not directly correlate oil and gas related 

BMPs or oil and gas mitigation to rangeland health standards. It does correlate surface disturbance 

mitigation to rangeland health standards. Typically, measures that reduce surface disturbance will help 

maintain rangeland conditions. Prompt and effective reclamation with appropriate plant species can also 

augment or enhance rangeland conditions. The monitoring efforts in the text refer to the monitoring of 

surface disturbance/reclamation efforts to ensure the measures are effective.

Comment: On page 4-46, the BLM suggests as one of its assumptions that post-lease actions including 

APDs and ROWs could be encumbered with new timing limitations or controlled use restrictions from the 

new RMP. When applying site-specific conditions of approval, the BLM must not impose restrictions that 

are inconsistent with EOG’s rights under its existing leases. The imposition of restrictions inconsistent 

with existing lease rights may result in an illegal taking of EOG’s existing contract and property rights.

Response: BLM does not disagree with the comment that it does not have the authority, once a lease is 

issued, to impose new stipulations or new restrictions on a lease that exceed the terms and conditions of 

existing leases. As stated on page 2-8 of the draft EIS, existing rights would be honored. Alternative 3 

does not impose new stipulations on existing leases. It does, however, provide the framework for 

application of COAs to post-lease actions that are determined through project- and/or site-specific NEPA 

analysis to be necessary for the mitigation of anticipated impacts. 

Sufficient case law exists to clearly demonstrate that BLM does have the authority and responsibility to 

impose new restrictions once a lease has been issued, as long as BLM does not deny development of the 

lease or totally preclude surface disturbing activities. Therefore, our position and policy is to take a “hard 

look” at the environmental consequences of a proposed action at the field development and APD stage, 

and, if necessary, require mitigation measures as means of reducing impacts. The Secretary of the Interior 

has the authority and responsibility to protect the environment of public lands within federal oil and gas 

leases (Copper Valley Mach. Works, Inc. V. Andrus, 474 F. Supp. 189, 191; D.D.C. 1979). The Secretary 

may impose restrictions on lease terms in fulfillment of this responsibility (Natural Resources Defense 

Counsel V. Bergland, 458 F. Supp 925, 937; D.D.C. 1978). 

In various oil and gas lease forms, the Secretary reserves the right to incorporate general standards into 

the lease aimed at mitigating environmental damage. However, mitigation must be reasonable. Such postlease restrictions cannot directly, or indirectly, preclude the development of the lease, absent a no surface 

occupancy stipulation on the lease. Sierra Club V. Peterson, 717 F. 2d 1409 (1983) provides: “On lands 

leased without a No Surface Occupancy Stipulation, the Department cannot deny the permit to drill; it can 

only impose ‘reasonable’ conditions which are designed to mitigate the environmental impacts of the 

drilling operation” (p. 1411). It continues: “Once the land is leased the Department no longer has the 

authority to preclude surface disturbing activities even if the environmental impact of that activity is 

significant...” What is reasonable will vary with each individual APD. A “taking” would occur if after a 

lease without an NSO stipulation is issued, the lessee is prohibited from conducting development 

activities on the leased lands. A “taking” could also occur if COAs imposed at the APD stage are so 

stringent that it is not practical to conduct operations. It is not the policy of the BLM to utilize unjustified 

stipulations or COAs.

Comment: BLM claims it fully considered the findings of the Energy Policy Conservation Action 

(“EPCA”) study, in accordance with BLM Instruction Memorandum 2003-233 and 2003-204 (Aug. 4, 

Pinedale RMP A27-281 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

2003). Page 2-9 states, “In compliance with EPCA, restrictions and impediments to mineral resource 

development would be analyzed throughout the planning process with the intent to: Ensure that such 

mitigation is either statutorily required or scientifically justifiable and is the least restrictive measure 

necessary to accomplish the desired level of resource protection. The mitigation requirements will be 

monitored to determine whether more- or less-restrictive measures may be required to accomplish the 

same goal.” BLM has been requiring monitoring in the Pinedale FO for quite some time; unfortunately, 

no information on what was being monitored has been discussed in the DEIS. We recommend BLM 

include the results of this monitoring in order to identify any unacceptable or unanticipated environmental 

effects have occurred and how impacts are projected to be different in the future. 

It is evident that BLM failed to utilize the findings of the second EPCA study, “Scientific Inventory of 

Onshore Federal Land’s Oil and Gas Resources and the Extent and Nature of Restrictions or Impediments 

to Their Development (2006) (EPCA II).” The EPCA II study is even more relevant because it shows that 

only 15 percent of the lands with oil and gas potential in the Green River Basin are available with 

standard lease terms and that 76 percent of the same area is subject to moderate to severe restrictions on 

development which has resulted in 37 percent of the area being closed to development between three and 

six months of the year while over 9 percent is subject to surface use constraints for nine months. It is 

clearly evident, based upon the Preferred Alternative, BLM intends to further increase these stipulations, 

despite the fact that the Pinedale Area is of great important to the nation in terms of its natural gas 

development potential. We urge the agency to revisit these proposed increases in restrictions with regard 

to their impact on natural gas development. 

BLM’s Manual 1624, Planning for Fluid Minerals, specifically directs BLM to demonstrate that the least 

restrictive lease stipulation offering adequate protection of a resource has been selected. BLM failed to 

provide this critically important analysis in the planning document. This omission is of critical concern 

because it indicates BLM has not adequately considered the effect of restrictive lease stipulations or 

permit conditions of approval (COA) on current and projected future oil and gas activities in the area. 

Given the fact that the plan will be used to make future decisions on activities, this lack of analysis and 

justification is a fatal flaw of the DEIS.

Response: BLM is not only required to meet the intent of EPCA, but also a number of other laws and 

regulations, including FLPMA. The draft EIS/RMP strives to reach a balance of commodity production 

and resource protection. Alternatives 2 and 4 address measures that would reduce restrictions on oil and 

gas development, especially in the identified “Intensively Developed” areas.

Comment: An example of an instance where compensation or offsite mitigation could be utilized would 

be oil and gas field developments where wildlife habitat impacts cannot be satisfactorily mitigated 

through onsite measures. Compensation mitigation would be used as a tool to address loss of habitat 

effectiveness when reclamation, best management practices (BMP), and onsite mitigation measures are 

not adequate to mitigate the impacts of proposed actions. Compensation mitigation would be used as a 

last choice when developing mitigation measures. Comment: BLM policy requires that offsite mitigation 

may only be used on a voluntary basis; however, the implication is that permit or project approval will be 

denied without it. When offsite mitigation is being considered as a design feature of the applicant’s 

submission, BLM’s NEPA analysis should: 1) evaluate the need for offsite mitigation, 2) consider the 

effectiveness of offsite mitigation in reducing, resolving, or eliminating impacts of the proposed 

project(s), and 3) comparatively analyze the proposal with and without the offsite mitigation. It must also 

be acknowledged that unless a proposed action would result in “unnecessary and undue” degradation, 

such mitigation requirements would exceed BLM’s authority. 

Page 2-14 Activity Plan Working Groups Comment: BLM has not adequately explained why, how or 

when activity plan working groups would be necessary in connection with oil and gas development 

A27-282 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

proposals. We are disturbed by the prospect of local, state and federal agencies attempting to reach 

agreement on how to manage a federal oil and gas project. First, each agency has its own principal 

mission, which may not coincide with the mission of BLM. Second, each agency has its own planning 

process and objectives. Obviously the prospect for severe disagreements and delays is real. BLM cannot 

afford to allow such complications to delay its ability to make reasonable, rational project level decisions. 

BLM, as the managing agency, must make it clear it has the final say in how a project will move forward. 

Third, it is necessary to avoid chartering any such group under the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA) since it has been clearly demonstrated that the Pinedale Anticline Working Group is not 

successful. Moreover, industry must not be required to fund any type of working group. We recommend 

that BLM give this issue more thorough consideration before deciding to implement Activity Plan 

Working Groups.

Comment–BLM views NEPA as a compliance requirement instead of a process that leads to improved 

decision-making and public support. For example, although BLM commits to monitoring, Field Offices 

seldom actually perform monitoring to acquire and incorporate new information after land and resource 

plans and projects are implemented. Monitoring may provide significant new information; for example, 

whether anticipated impacts to wildlife occur, or, if required seasonal use stipulations are needed or 

effective. Comment: We recommend that BLM institutionalize a database clearinghouse where 

comprehensive data bases would be maintained and available to all. Further, we recommend that BLM: 

• Use the most practical and cost effective means to acquire data where gaps exist 

• Use cooperative ventures between federal, local, and state agencies and companies 

• Publish/make available all data collected under these plans unless collected voluntarily by 

companies and provided to BLM for internal use only. 

• Establish data collection priorities, standards and objectives

Response: The RMP does not imply or require the implementation of offsite mitigation. It only sets the 

framework for it. Offsite mitigation would strictly be voluntary and would be managed in strict 

conformance with BLM Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2005-063. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-121, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [d. Post-lease actions (APDs, Sundry 

Notices) would be managed under restrictions and COAs developed through programmatic and/or sitespecific environmental analysis.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: See Comment #80. 

Response: Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-2 give BLM authority to impose restrictions on postlease actions, such as APDs.

Comment: PAGE: 2-122, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete subsets of ¶b [1. Oil and gas activities 

would be regulated to mitigate impacts on important wildlife habitats, including big game crucial winter 

ranges and greater sage-grouse habitats. 2. BMPs would be applied to mitigate impacts on sensitive 

habitats and other resources (Appendix 5). 3. Post-lease actions (APDs, Sundry Notices) would be 

managed under restrictions and COAs developed through the appropriate level of additional 

environmental analysis.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: See Comment #83. BMPs are voluntary and 

cannot be required as a condition of approval. Even the Gold Book recognizes the voluntary nature of 

BMPs. As written, RMP would be used to impose these as mandatory conditions and that exceeds BLM 

authority. 

Response: Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-2 give BLM the authority to impose stipulations on new 

leases and restrictions on post-lease actions on existing leases.

Pinedale RMP A27-283 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: We urge BLM in preparing the FEIS to include specific, meaningful mitigation measures that 

cannot be waived or excepted in the absence of plainly demonstrated extraordinary circumstances.

Response: BLM land use planning guidelines relative to minerals management specify that land use 

plans must establish criteria for evaluating waivers, modifications, and exceptions to lease stipulations 

and COAs. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-48 SECTION: 2.5.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [7. Impacts to 

wildlife habitat, cultural resources, vegetation, visual, and recreational values would be adequately 

mitigated.](strikeout) EXPLANATION: This is not a factor when addressing drainage. The sole issue is 

to protect US Treasury. BLM cannot compel operator of off-setting well to adopt additional mitigation, 

especially if it would increase costs and negate obligation to drill offsetting well. 

Response: BLM disagrees. BLM is mandated to prevent drainage, but is also mandated to manage the 

resource values under its jurisdiction under the direction of FLPMA. If BLM determines the development 

of off-setting wells would cause undue or unnecessary degradation to surface resources values, BLM is 

obligated to mitigate the impact.

Comment: In general the pace and scale of the proposed development in the Pinedale Anticline and 

Jonah fields has the potential to significantly degrade wildlife habitat, particularly pronghorn crucial 

winter ranges and migration routes, through the fragmentation of key habitats. We believe that across all 

of the alternatives, the draft RMP is lacking specific and quantifiable criteria for fluid mineral best 

management practices in reducing impacts to big game crucial winter range; is insufficient in describing 

the off-site or compensation mitigation process; and fails to set thresholds for impacts to wildlife. Such 

thresholds are critical for the appropriate management of pronghorn and should be set by the WGFD to 

include species-specific parameters below which mitigation measures will automatically be mandated. 

Measurable population parameters include minimum population size, minimum adult and juvenile 

survival rates, and minimum fawn:doe and buck:doe ratios.

Response: Because the RMP will not authorize any on-the-ground development, it is not possible to 

design appropriate mitigation for every type of project that might be proposed in the future. Specific 

mitigation and reclamation practices are developed at the site-specific project analysis level, for example, 

in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline EISs.

Comment: PAGE: 4.46, SECTION: 4.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Best management 

practices are voluntary. EXPLANATION: See Comment #Ch 2-32.

Response: Offsite mitigation is voluntary, BMPs can be required.

Comment: Beyond assurances of adequate bonding, the RMP needs to provide assurances of adequate 

funding for monitoring, evaluation and enforcement. Without adequate monitoring, water contamination 

and other problems will not be discovered, and reclamation bonds will be meaningless. With ten thousand 

odd gas wells on the horizon, plus widespread ORV use, livestock grazing and a variety of other uses, the 

Pinedale Resource Area may be the most heavily used tract of BLM real estate in the nation. To keep 

track of all these uses and developments, BLM needs to devote a large amount of funding to monitoring 

and enforcement. The operators who are triggering the requirement for more monitoring and enforcement 

should pay this bill. In comparison to the billions of dollars in revenues the energy companies are earning 

from the PRA each year, even $10 million per year in monitoring funds would be but a drop in the 

financial condensate tank.

A27-284 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: This is not within the scope or authority of an RMP. An RMP cannot bind Congress to provide 

any level of funding nor can it direct Congress where to allocate funds.

Comment: The new RMP should also condition funding of actions in the PRA on mitigation, in 

accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 1505.3(b). Specifically, the RMP should include binding management 

direction that removes funding for BLM review of new drilling applications in an area when 

environmental impacts from drilling and production operations in that area are found to exceed 

allowances, indicating mitigation has not succeeded in controlling the impacts. This would apply to water 

quality, air quality, wildlife populations and other resources:

Response: This is not within the scope or authority of an RMP. An RMP cannot bind Congress to provide 

any level of funding nor can it direct Congress where to allocate funds.

Comment: • To minimize risks of contamination from pipeline leaks, require the use of stainless steel 

pipe and the best available leak detection technology. Pipelines that may be used to convey condensate or 

produced water should be installed on top of a wide V-shaped double liner. 

• The RMP should require monitoring for NORM contamination at facilities in the PRA and other off site 

facilities that are involved in BLM-authorized oil or gas production in the PRA (including reserve pits, 

cuttings, sludges, produced waters, evaporation ponds, pipelines, pig insertion/extraction points, etc.). A 

“well-trained technician is required to make such surveys with confidence” and “laboratory analyses” 

should be used “to determine accurately the amount of contamination” [30] at 14-15.

Response: These are the types of considerations that typically could be addressed and potentially 

implemented in project-level NEPA documents. The RMP does provide the framework for these types of 

mitigations through performance-based mitigation.

Comment: -By 2010, all oil and gas drilling operations in the PRA and other BLM-administered 

subsurface leases shall make use of no-pit drilling techniques. See, e.g., [55]. In the interim, and for any 

grandfathered pits in operation after 2010, the RMP should require sufficient monitoring of pits, including 

evaporation ponds, to prevent overflows (e.g., during storm events, due to icing, from faulty equipment, 

etc.) and overspray, and to identify leaks. 

-Require sprinkler systems used at pits and evaporation ponds to utilize anemometers to automatically 

shut down the sprinkler pumping system when strong winds would carry contaminated spray beyond the, 

area protected by liners. 

-Require all drilling-related pits (e.g., reserve pits, waste pits, catchment basins, and evaporation ponds) to 

be removed - along with liners, any sludge contents, and any underlying or surrounding contaminated 

soils or waters - within 6 months of the time they are no longer needed; furthermore, require the 

excavated materials (including liners) to be hauled to a permitted hazardous materials disposal facility. 

-To protect ground waters from hazmat spills on well pads, require full double-liners under all well pads 

(not just under pits) for drilling operations in all areas with “moderately high” sensitivity and “medium” 

sensitivity” aquifers (areas depicted as yellow and green in Figure 3, respectively). This should include 

processing/de-watering stations as well as condensate and produced water storage tanks. Best (i.e., most 

durable and protective) available liner materials should be used. If any exceptions are made to allow well 

pads on lands with “high sensitivity” aquifers (no such exceptions should be made), triple-liners topped 

with a layer of clay soil (sterile) should be used under all well pads.

Pinedale RMP A27-285 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Response: These are the types of considerations that typically could be addressed and potentially 

implemented in project-level NEPA documents. The RMP does provide the framework for these types of 

mitigations through performance-based mitigation.

Comment: PAGE:2-148,RECOMMENDED CHANGE: l. Oil and gas developmental operations would 

be managed through performance-based stipulations and mitigations provided in Appendix 3. 

EXPLANATION: If l then Delete a-k. Reliance on performance-based stipulations is meaningless when 

coupled with command and control terms listed above. 

Response: Implementation of performance-based stipulations provides necessary flexibility while still 

meeting the various objectives in the RMP.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include the following: 

• Types and quantities of chemicals used in drilling, completion; and stimulation operations in the 

PRA (including non-federal lands where possible). 

• Estimated quantities and types of drilling, completion and stimulation chemicals that remain in 

the ground. 

• The number of reported hazmat releases in and around the PRA, associated with BLM-authorized 

activities, and the types and estimated quantities of released materials.

Response: This type of project-specific data can vary from field to field and would typically be included 

in project-level NEPA documents. The oil and gas fields in the planning area do occasionally experience 

hydrocarbon and/or produced water releases/spills. These are not considered hazmat releases. In the past 5 

years, there has been one barrel methanol spill that was reported to BLM. Information on spills can be 

requested from the BLM Pinedale Field Office. Spills/releases are also reported to WDEQ, which 

maintains a database.

Comment: PAGE: 2-135, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add the following action: BLM will 

coordinate with the conservation districts in monitoring and enforcing reclamation plans. 

EXPLANATION: As noted above, the local governments believe that BLM resources are better placed in 

monitoring and enforcing current rules rather than developing new standards. 

Response: BLM will coordinate with a variety of agencies when additional expertise is needed. It is not 

necessary to state this in the RMP.

Comment: PAGE:2-120, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [1. Oil and gas activities would be 

designed to mitigate impacts on important wildlife habitats, including big game crucial winter ranges and 

greater sage-grouse habitats. 2. BMPs would be applied to mitigate impacts on sensitive habitats and 

other resources (Appendix 5).] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: Minimally developed lease area creates 

regulatory conflicts by attempting to retrofit new lease terms on existing leases or indirectly limiting 

development on adjacent private lands. In both cases, this is an essentially illegal condition and the local 

governments believe it should be dropped. BLM lacks any legal authority to impose seasonal or wildlife 

habitat conditions on existing leases, because BLM cannot lawfully change lease stipulations. For the 

same reason, BLM cannot try to use conditions of approval to retrofit new lease terms onto existing 

leases. See National Wildlife Federation, et. al., 150 IBLA 385, 403 (1999) (citing Union Oil v. Morton, 

512 F.2d 743, 750-51 (9 Cir. 1975)). 

A27-286 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: Page 2-8 of the draft EIS emphatically states: “Existing oil and gas or other mineral lease 

rights would be honored. When an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a valid existing right; BLM 

cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the lease.” Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-2 

give BLM authority to impose restrictions on post-lease actions, such as APDs.

Comment: PAGE: 2-120, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE e. Ongoing and monitored 

[Accelerated] (strikeout) reclamation would be implemented to reestablish habitats. EXPLANATION: As 

noted above, requiring accelerated reclamation is meaningless if there is no monitoring to ensure that it is 

actually done. The local governments believe that this is a more effective approach.

Response: Specific reclamation standards and monitoring requirements will be developed through 

project-level NEPA documents.

Comment: PAGE: 2-120, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add the following: Enforce and monitor the 

success of reclamation. EXPLANATION: The RMP does not address efforts to ensure that reclamation is 

successful. Local governments have found that reclamation is often not successful within the first season 

and yet there is relatively little attention being paid to this major issue. RMP needs to include steps to 

make sure that the work is done rather than adding yet one more condition onto energy development. 

Response: Specific reclamation standards and monitoring requirements will be developed through 

project-level NEPA documents.

Comment: PAGE: 2-47 SECTION: 2.5.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Most of the area 

classified as minimally developed is already under lease or privately owned and therefore not subject to 

minimal development terms and conditions. EXPLANATION: BLM recognizes that it has limited 

authority to revise a lease and best management practices including the Gold Book are voluntary not 

mandatory.

Response: The management actions would apply to new leases.

Comment: The discussion on compensation stipulations needs to include the discussion of management 

of the production cycle as well as the exploration and drilling cycle over the life of the well(s). The RMP 

discusses compensation stipulations that must last as long as impacts are expected to occur. With this 

reasoning, if the life of several hundred or several thousand wells last 20-30 years, then the planning of 

securing these off-site compensation areas needs to be considered now. Further compensation discussion 

addressed that impacts occurring on public lands must be addressed but that off-site compensation on 

private land will not occur. This statement of reasoning should be re-evaluated and the BLM needs to 

address the landscape management scale in their planning effort. While the BLM deals only with public 

lands, actions that are approved by the BLM that directly or indirectly impact private lands needs to be 

considered. For instance, if the increase in the number of wells adversely displaces wildlife populations 

onto private ranching communities and into private homeowner’s backyards due to loss of native habitat, 

the BLM should be taking responsibility at some level for the cause of these incidents. If there are water 

quality (groundwater or surface water) issues on private lands that are a result of the increase in drilling 

on public lands, BLM needs to consider this. 

Response: The RMP sets the framework for offsite mitigation. The project-specific opportunities for and 

the duration of offsite mitigation would be developed through project-level NEPA analysis. Be reminded 

that offsite mitigation is strictly voluntary for project proponents. BLM policy concerning offsite 

mitigation, promulgated under BLM-Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2005-069, does not 

provide for mitigation on private lands, except a possibility where the private lands involve split estate 

leases. The text concerning offsite mitigation has been changed to state: “All offsite mitigation proposals 

Pinedale RMP A27-287 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

will be subject to all of the terms and conditions in BLM-Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 

2005-069.”

Comment: With most large oil and gas companies experiencing record profits (e.g., Ultra 15% increase 

in 1St quarter of 2007; Questar 10% in 1" quarter; Shell 5.7% in 1" quarter), there is absolutely no 

justification for not requiring industry to carry the load, both in terms of preventing significant impacts 

through mitigation and in terms of funding mitigation after impacts have occurred. Industry should be 

paying the costs of monitoring as well. It should not be the public which bears the costs for these 

expenses. We have said it before and we will repeat it again, whatever BLM reasonably asks industry to 

do, it will do. The profits to be realized are too great not to, and industry knows this. If BLM mandates 

directional drilling, or clustered wells, or completely centralized gathering systems, or a slower pace of 

drilling, industry will comply-not because it doesn’t have any choice, but because it knows it will still 

reap record profits from the public lands. As the Western Governors Association and others recognize, 

there must be a balance and so far BLM has refused to introduce a proper balance into the proposed RMP. 

Programs such as the Healthy Lands Initiative should not be funded by the taxpayers; this is the 

responsibility of those using the public lands.

Response: Mitigation and monitoring requirements must be designed to mitigate impacts or determine 

the effectiveness of the mitigation. An operator’s profit margin has absolutely no bearing on what level of 

mitigation is or is not required. Concerning a resource management balance, the draft EIS addresses a 

reasonable range of alternatives that set different balance scenarios. The alternatives are consistent with 

BLM’s public land, natural resource, and mineral resource mandates.

Comment: Last, with regard to the minerals operating standards, Appendix 3 contains some provisions 

that are important and which should be made mandatory. Specifically, these provisions and our comments 

are provided below: “Each new lease would be reviewed on its own merits to ensure the appropriate 

protective measures/stipulations are applied (see Appendices 2, 5, 12, and 18.” A3-8. In regard to oil and 

gas drilling, protections specified in Appendices 2, 5, 12 and 18 must be fully applied at the leasing stage 

when BLM has the maximum bundle of rights to condition development and protect the natural 

environment. We ask BLM to commit to applying the provisions in these Appendices at the leasing stage 

as needed. In addition to any “performance-based” guidelines BLM chooses to adopt, there must be 

“prescriptive” standards to ensure BLM’s legal duty to protect the natural environment is fulfilled. 

“Drilling of multiple well bores from a single well pad could reduce impacts to wildlife by reducing the 

number of surface locations and surface area disturbance.” A3-8. Clustered well pads, as well as 

directional drilling, must be required by BLM, with exceptions granted only where it is clearly and 

convincingly demonstrated by the lessee that it is technically non-feasible or that greater damage to the 

environment would occur by using these methods. Economic feasibility and temporary lack of equipment, 

for example, should be given little, if any, consideration. They are simply costs of doing business on 

public lands. 

“Experimental methods to maintain or reclaim wildlife habitat or improve reclamation science are 

encouraged to be tested on small areas within the planning area. When scientifically proven effective for a 

reclamation objective, these methods may be incorporated into proven reclamation methods.” A3-8. 

Commercial users should be required to engage in and fund experimentation to achieve successful and 

permanent reclamation of wildlife habitat. “Reclamation” should mean full and successful restoration or 

improvement of wildlife habitat to its original pre-disturbance condition, using only native species. 

Evaporation ponds should be eliminated entirely and central collection systems should be required.

Response: Appendices 2, 3, 5, 12 , and 18 of the draft EIS provide BLM with a variety of mitigation 

measures/BMPs to be applied to new oil and gas leases, as well as to post-lease and other surface 

disturbing activities where resource values exist that warrant such application. BLM fully intends to apply 

A27-288 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

the referenced measures where warranted. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 establish performance objectives. 

Performance-based standard allows project proponents an opportunity to develop measures that would 

meet the objective. Should BLM determine that the proponent’s measure would not meet the objective, 

BLM retains the authority to impose prescriptive measures. 

Directional drilling/clustered development (i.e., multiple wells from a single pad, centralized production 

facilities, etc.) are some of the best management practices listed in Appendix 5 of the draft EIS/RMP for 

use when and where appropriate. They are not appropriate or necessary everywhere or all the time, 

therefore it would be inappropriate to mandate their use. An example where such BMPs would not be 

appropriate would be an exploratory well in areas with minimal resource concerns and no other well pads 

or production facilities within a reasonable distance. BMPs, such as directional drilling and “clustered” 

development, would be included in project-level NEPA documents. 

It is appropriate for the draft EIS/RMP to set successful reclamation objectives. It is not appropriate for 

the RMP to mandate the testing of experimental methods. BLM will certainly work with all project 

proponents to develop and implement effective reclamation. Effective reclamation may very well involve 

testing new procedures. It is important for planning documents to have sufficient flexibility to allow the 

testing of new technologies; however, it is not appropriate for a planning document to have a blanket 

mandate to implement such technologies.

Wilderness and Roadless Areas 

Comment: Our government talks about funding renewable energy sources yet still focuses on opening 

new expanses of wilderness for drilling. I understand renewable energy is not completely economical yet, 

and therefore we must still uphold our oil addiction. However, we must handle this situation in 

Yellowstone responsibly. Yes we need the oil, and yes there is a way to extract without hurting the 

ecosystem. Cluster the drills, use anti-erosion techniques to limit the impact roads have on the 

environment. Also, don’t let this oil reserve become our crutch. Please continue to fund renewable energy 

resource. There is a way for mankind to coexist with our planet. Through technology we can accomplish 

this goal and generations to come and experience our wonderful planet. You’ve been privileged enough to 

experience this beautiful earth in your lifetime as I have, let us not ruin it for our children.

Response: This RMP does not propose or anticipate development of wells in any WSA. There are no 

wilderness areas in the planning area. Development rates and infrastructure limitation scenarios are 

project-level issues that would be addressed through project-level EISs. 

Comment: Yellowstone stands alone as our premiere national park but its ecosystem is being threatened 

by the proposed Upper Green River development as a gas field. This cannot be allowed to happen. As I 

understand it, much of this gas leasing is in inventoried roadless areas. Despite the Bush’s 

administration’s opinion, the federal courts have upheld the Roadless Rule protecting these lands. It is 

therefore illegal to exploit much of this land anyway.

Response: No inventoried roadless areas are located within the planning area or would be leased for oil 

and gas under the Pinedale RMP.

Noise, Visual Resource Management (VRM), Air Quality, Water Quality, 

Contamination 

Comment: The BLM should eliminate the noise restrictions within Intensively Developed Fields. The 

BLM has not justified the potentially onerous restrictions, or demonstrated that such restrictions are 

technically or economically feasible. With respect to existing leases, the BLM lacks the. authority to 

impose mitigation measures on oil and gas leases that are not technically or economically feasible. Once 

Pinedale RMP A27-289 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

the BLM has issued an oil and gas lease conveying the right to access and develop the leasehold, the 

BLM cannot later impose unreasonable mitigation measures that take away those rights. See Conner v. 

Burford, 84 F.2d 1441, 1449-50 (9th Cir. 1988); 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2 (2006) (BLM can impose only 

“reasonable mitigation measures...to minimize adverse impacts...to the extent consistent with lease rights 

granted”).

Response: Existing valid legal rights will be honored. Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-2 give BLM 

the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on post-lease authorizations, such as APDs and Sundry 

Notices. BLM considers noise restrictions as meeting the “reasonable restriction” requirement. The 

restriction is based on the data in the Matt Holloran sage-grouse study. It would be incumbent on the 

operator to demonstrate to BLM that the directional drilling of a certain well or wells would be 

technically or economically infeasible.

Comment: The BLM should eliminate the noise restrictions within Intensively Developed Fields. The 

BLM has not justified the potentially onerous restrictions, or demonstrated that such restrictions are 

technically or economically feasible. 

Response: Sage-grouse studies indicate that increased noise appears to affect sage-grouse attendance on 

leks. Based on this, BLM feels this mitigation is warranted in certain situations. Affected parties have the 

opportunity to demonstrate that a given application of the restriction would not be economically or 

technically feasible. 

Comment: Intensively Developed Fields: The BLM should eliminate the noise restrictions within 

Intensively Developed Fields such as the PAPA. The BLM has not justified the potentially onerous 

restrictions or demonstrated that such restrictions are technically or economically feasible. With respect to 

existing leases, the BLM lacks the authority to impose mitigation measures on oil and gas leases that are 

not technically or economically feasible. Once the BLM has issued an oil and gas lease conveying the 

right to access and develop the leasehold, the BLM cannot later impose unreasonable mitigation measures 

that take away those rights. See Conner v. Burford, 84 F.2d 1441, 1449-50 (9th Cir. 1988); 43 C.F.R. § 

3101.1-2 (2006) (BLM can impose only “reasonable mitigation measures . . . to minimize adverse 

impacts . . . to the extent consistent with lease rights granted”).

Response: BLM feels noise restrictions are both reasonable and necessary to mitigate impacts to residents 

in the vicinity of the development, as well as to wildlife using the area. NEPA and CEQ regulations 

require BLM to disclose, and to the extent practicable mitigate, anticipated impacts. Again, regulations 

afford a leaseholder/operator the opportunity to appeal restrictions they believe are not reasonable. 

Comment: The resource management plan should mandate air emission controls and establish a stringent 

emissions cap. It should also eliminate loopholes to waive surface protections, and strictly define 

management objectives and monitoring and mitigation measures. 

Response: Air emissions and air quality are regulated by the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality, as delegated by EPA. BLM does not have the authority to establish emission controls and caps. 

It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not directly 

authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and the 

methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted.

Comment: Not enough, if any, concerns or attempt to alleviate air quality from massive ongoing 

petroleum activity is available or planned. This area contains world class fisheries and water of quality 

good enough seven downstream states fight to get a taste. To subject the Green River valley to prevailing 

A27-290 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

winds full of exhaust emissions from the diesel powered exploratory and production equipment is 

criminal. It is well know that such emissions are the essential constituent that produces acid rain that not 

only compromises heavily streams and lakes, but also directly impedes vegetation and habitat growth. 

The Wyoming Range is essentially a basin surrounded by 3 high mountain ranges and oilfield activity 

occurring is this sink will not allow the BLM to manage for its basic mandate, that of “Multiple Use” as 

there will be no other use such as hunting, tourism, recreation, even agriculture once the quality of these 

lands has been degraded by development, roads, and pipelines, traffic, etc.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP does provide for multiple use. Please note that mineral development is 

also one of the uses under BLM’s multiple-use mandate.

Comment: Impacts Under Alternative 4, Preferred Alternative: The BLM must also revise the acres of 

lands that will be subject to VRM II restrictions across the planning area. As the BLM admits on page 4-

72, VRM I and II areas “would be largely unavailable for mineral development.” By imposing VRM I 

and II restrictions on approximately 30% of the resource area, the BLM is essentially foreclosing oil and 

gas development in those areas, particularly in areas of the PAPA where APC owns existing leases.

Response: The purpose of Chapter 4 is to disclose anticipated impacts, which page 4-72 of the draft EIS 

does for VRM impacts to mineral development in VRM I and II areas. Please note that the VRM I areas 

are the two existing WSAs within the planning area. Also please note that page 4-72 discloses that under 

Alternative 4 much of the VRM I and II areas would be unavailable for leasing, would be in areas 

available for leasing with NSO stipulation, and/or are in areas with low potential for oil and gas 

development. Further, be reminded that page 2-8 of the draft EIS states: “Existing oil and gas or other 

mineral lease rights would be honored. When an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a valid existing 

right; BLM cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the lease. Existing leases would not be 

affected by new closures and/or areas administratively unavailable for lease, and restrictions could not be 

added to existing leases. Surface use and timing restrictions resulting from this RMP cannot be applied to 

existing leases. Existing leases would not be terminated until the lease expires. However, based on site- or 

project-specific environmental analysis, conditions of approval (COA) could be applied at the APD and 

Sundry Notice stage, and at subsequent development stages, to mitigate potential impacts from oil and gas 

operations within existing lease areas, providing the leaseholder’s right to develop the lease remains 

intact.”

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-49: “Emission mitigation would be required under all alternatives to 

reduce impacts on air quality and visibility. The best available drill rig technologies would be utilized to 

lessen rig emissions. This would result in a reduction of air quality impacts from oil and gas development 

operations. However, implementing these requirements could result in greater operating costs and could 

make some resources less attractive to develop. If future analysis determines that the mitigation has not 

been sufficiently effective to prevent emissions from oil and gas exploration and development from 

exceeding national or Wyoming ambient air quality standards, the development of additional wells could 

be in jeopardy.” Recommendations: Delete paragraphs, as they are subjective statements. 

Response: BLM believes the paragraphs are pertinent to informing the public of planned mitigation and 

their anticipated impacts. 

Comment: The fact that the operators are required to cement the well to a depth far below the upper 

aquifers is comforting. However, I am still uncertain that our current testing for TPH-GRO instead of the 

more expensive BTEX is a prudent practice. There were lengthy discussions in our meetings about the 

most appropriate testing and the consensus in the group was that TPH would be adequate. I was not 

entirely happy with this conclusion since my research on the issue led me to a Ministry for the 

Environment New Zealand web site that made the following comment regarding TPH testing: “TPH 

Pinedale RMP A27-291 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

methods that do not use purge-and-trap or headspace analysis (eg, the New Zealand oil industry method) 

will not cover benzene or n-hexane, etc., because the extraction methods can involve loss of volatiles. The 

limitations of the analytical method should therefore be considered when interpreting the analytical 

results”. My biggest concern is to make sure that Benzene, a potent carcinogen linked to leukemia, does 

not contaminate the drinking water of humans or livestock. The EPA in 40cfr141.32 have declared 

Benzene to pose a risk to humans at a level of only 0.005 parts per million. Ethyl benzene (at 0.7 ppm), 

Toluene (at 1 ppm), and Xylene (at 10 ppm) all pose a threat to Kidneys, Liver and the Nervous system of 

humans and animals. I would like to see at least a percentage of domestic wells tested for BTEX as the 

original BLM ROD so appropriately stated.

Response: BLM coordinates with WDEQ and WOGCC with sampling parameters for various activities 

and has the authority to require specific tests. BTEX samples could certainly be required where deemed 

necessary and would be addressed through project-specific NEPA documents.

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-167: “There would be a large number of additional water and mineral 

production wells added over the life of the plan, primarily in concentrated areas in and around gasfields, 

which would create an expanding potential for contamination or mixing of aquifers beyond that which 

presently exists.” Recommendations: Provide citation and provide support for conclusions. 

Response: The statement is based on the assumption that the projected increase in oil and gas wells over 

the life of the plan will require an increase in the number of water supply wells to drill and complete those 

oil and gas wells. The text is being changed in the final EIS to read: “There would potentially be an 

increase is the number of additional water and mineral production wells added over the life of the plan, 

primarily in concentrated areas in and around gas fields. By virtue of more water well bores into the fresh 

water bearing zones, there would be an inherent increase in the chance of exposure to aquifer 

contamination and aquifer mixing.”

Comment: The BLM indicates on page 2-44 of the RMP DEIS that it may impose NSO restrictions 

within 1/a mile or the visual horizon of historic trails. The BLM cannot impose restrictions on existing 

leases that are inconsistent with vested lease rights. This is particularly true with respect to EOG’s leases, 

which predate the potential restrictions. Additionally, this potential restriction is inappropriate because in 

many cases the visual horizon is literally several miles away and could restrict access to huge sections of 

existing leases, thus depriving EOG of its existing lease rights and depriving the nation from much 

needed domestic energy supplies. The imposition of restrictions, if unreasonably, could even rise to the 

level of a taking in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Response: The referenced statement is a direct recapitulation of text from the existing RMP approved in 

1988. Alternative 1 would continue implementation of the decisions in the 1988 plan. NEPA requires the 

consideration/analysis of a No Action alternative. For the purposes of the draft EIS/RMP, continuing the 

management prescriptions in the 1988 plan is the No Action alternative and as such it is included 

verbatim from the 1988 ROD. The referenced text is not a new requirement. All leases issued subsequent 

to the approval of the 1988 ROD within 1⁄4 mile or the visual horizon (whichever is closer) of contributing 

sections of historic trails contain this stipulation (emphasis added). The stipulation cannot be retroactively 

applied to any leases issued prior to approval of the 1988 ROD. However, as prescribed in 43 CFR 

3101.1-2, BLM can apply COAs to post-lease actions.

Comment: The second major loophole that would detract from the potential protections of Alternative 3 

are the provisions that would allow ‘lifting’ of the nominal protection of an Unavailable Area designation 

if drainage of oil and gas is determined to be occurring.5 A number of provisions are provided as to how 

and when this designation could be “lifted” in a drainage situation, but they are inconsistent and thus 

create confusion. Compare 2-48 (Large Block NSO provisions), 2-49 (Unavailable Areas provisions that 

A27-292 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

appear less protective than the Large Block NSO provisions), and 2-83 (Unavailable Areas provisions that 

differ from the analogous provisions on page 2-49). The BLM should engage in a careful analysis of 

when and where drainage is likely to be a problem. Is drainage already determined to be a problem 

anywhere in the Pinedale Field Office? Given that in at least some areas natural gas production is coming 

from “tight sands” and very disconnected pockets (lenses) of natural gas, drainage would seem to not be a 

real issue in at least some areas. And at a minimum, if significant drainage is determined to be occurring, 

the RMP should establish that the first tier response to deal with this issue will not be lifting the 

unavailable for leasing designation, rather the first response should be to seek to capture the gas through 

drilling from an area with existing development, likely through directional drilling. Furthermore 

unitization should be pursued for the area in question as it would allow the BLM to require coordination 

in the extraction of natural gas underlying multiple contiguous leases - potentially negating the need for 

lifting of RMP protections.6 That is, all options for maintaining the area as unavailable for leasing should 

be explored first prior to lifting this designation; designating these areas as free from future leasing is the 

management direction BLM has determined is most appropriate and it should aggressively seek to 

maintain that status and management direction. Additionally, prior to lifting any such designation the 

BLM should provide in the RMP that any such modification will be subject to full compliance with 

NEPA, including provisions for public participation in the decision-making.

Response: The criteria to be considered for lifting the unavailable designation have been updated in the 

final EIS. BLM does not have sufficient data to be able to reasonably project or predict where drainage 

would occur that may require the developing of offsetting federal wells. BLM does have the authority to 

form federal units. It does not have the authority to force holders of state or private leases to join a federal 

unit. Consequently, the drainage language is appropriate. The RMP states that additional NEPA analysis 

would be required before the unavailable designation could be lifted.

Comment: Even the best management direction will not prevent all impacts. Accidents happen, and 

unforeseen events happen. To ensure such incidents are fully corrected, the new RMP must include strong 

requirements to clean-up contaminants that may affect water resources. I ask the BLM to adopt the 

following remediation-related management direction in the new RMP: 

-For any potentially harmful chemicals proposed for use in drilling, completion, stimulation, refinement 

or production operations, require the applicant to demonstration there is an existing remediation method 

available to fully address any potential release. If the applicant cannot demonstrate the existence of 

adequate remediation methods, the RMP should require BLM to deny use of the chemicals in question.

Response: Spill clean-up is already required by state and federal regulation. Companies are required to 

post Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for all chemicals used on location, which address treatment of 

the chemical.

Comment: -Allow operators to use bioremediation strategies only where past experience has 

demonstrated the proposed bioremediation method can be successfully used to decontaminate waters or 

soils affected by the chemicals in question, in a climate similar to the PRA’s.

Response: Bioremediation is already available to operators. Projects would be addressed on a sitespecific, case-by-case basis. Regulations already require that remediation be successful. Operators must 

continue the remediation effort until it meets the requirement for success.

Comment: - To reduce acidification and other air pollutant depositional impacts in high elevation lakes, 

the new RMP should require the use of timeless completions of wells throughout the PRA. To reduce 

acidification and other air pollutant depositional impacts in surface waters, the RMP should also require 

Pinedale RMP A27-293 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

no-pit drilling by 2010. Under current direction, large quantities of HCl and other acids used in 

completion and stimulation end up in pits where they evaporate and contribute to depositional pollution. 

- Require full netting over all pits and evaporation ponds to avoid waterfowl mortality [41]. 

- To discourage illegal dumping of produced waters, the RMP should declare that when a company 

(including employees or equipment) is found to have participated in illegal dumping of produced waters, 

any applicable leases/permits will be revoked and the company will be permanently barred from 

conducting business on BLM lands in the future. Similar direction should be included for illegal dumping 

of sludges, contaminated soils, etc.

Response: These are the types of considerations that typically could be addressed and potentially 

implemented in project-level NEPA documents. The RMP does provide the framework for these types of 

mitigations through performance-based mitigation. The comment regarding illegal dumping of produced 

water is beyond the scope of the RMP.

Comment: Require monitoring of storm water runoff from well pads and oil and gas support facilities to 

determine the extent to which they are contributing to surface water contamination.

Response: These are the types of considerations that typically could be addressed and potentially 

implemented in project-level NEPA documents. It is neither reasonable nor practical to require such 

monitoring for each individual well pad, but could be appropriate on a drainage basis.

Comment: Where other oil and gas production facilities using hazardous materials are located in BLM 

lands, the RMP should require similar protections against ground water (and surface water) contamination 

as are required for well pads and pits. In particular, gas treatment/dehydration/refinement stations should 

have full double liners and should not be allowed in areas with highly sensitive aquifers. Where such 

support facilities would be constructed on state or private lands, the RMP should require BLM to work 

with other permitting agencies to have the facilities lined to protect water contamination. Because nearly 

all of the oil and gas development in the region is occurring under BLM leases and APD approvals, it is 

reasonable for the RMP to include direction to eliminate or reduce off-site indirect impacts of these BLM 

actions. 

The RMP should require companies working in oil and gas exploration and production (including fracing 

and incidental support services) to report all releases of hazardous materials. Even though spills of small 

quantities do not need to be reported to the EPA or DEQ, the BLM has the authority to require such spills 

to be reported as a condition of operating in the PRA. Due to the cumulatively large number of small 

“non-reportable” spills occurring in the PRA, reporting small spills is necessary to evaluate cumulative 

impacts.

Response: Reports of releases of hazardous material are governed by CERCLA. Companies are already 

required by regulation to report spills of 10 barrels or larger. Companies routinely report all spills to 

BLM. These are the type of considerations that typically could be addressed and potentially implemented 

in project-level NEPA documents. The RMP does provide the framework for these types of mitigations 

through performance-based mitigation. 

Comment: -Require drilling operators to install surface casing from the surface through the entire 

Wasatch aquifer. 

A27-294 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

-Prohibit the use of known or suspected carcinogens, mutagens, developmental toxicants, reproductive 

toxicants, and neuro-toxicants in drilling, completion and stimulation fluids when oil or gas wells would 

pierce Class I, Class II or Class III ground water aquifers. 

-Prohibit the use of drilling, completion and stimulation fluids that contain other chemicals with known or 

suspected health risks (e.g., liver and kidney toxicants) when potential release concentrations into 

domestic-use ground waters could cause long-term toxicity or health effects. 

-Encourage operators to use non-toxic (i.e., “green”) chemicals for drilling, completion, stimulation, 

refinement and production operations. This may involve financial incentives and/or relaxed stipulations 

that would otherwise apply. 

-Where an operator refuses to use non-toxic chemicals for gas production activities, re-quire that operator 

to add inert, long-lived “tracer” molecules to drilling, completion and stimulation fluids that would allow 

- even when present in very low concentrations - de-termination of the source(s) of ground water 

contamination. Ideally, each operator and possibly each well cluster should be required to use a different 

tracer to allow discrimination between different potential sources of contamination.

Response: BLM, in conjunction with WDEQ and WOGCC, requires operators to use fresh water when 

drilling through fresh water zones, to set surface casing to depths below the fresh water zones, and to 

cement the outside of the full length of the surface casing back to the surface. The State of Wyoming has 

primacy for the management and protection of ground water resources. The RMP discloses potential 

impacts to those resources so that the agency having jurisdiction can address them.

Comment: Require drilling operators to use techniques that minimize drilling fluid loss (i.e., lost 

circulation) into ground waters and sedimentary deposits. This should include best available methods for 

determining when a “formation may ... not be sufficiently competent to sup-port the hydrostatic pressure 

applied by the drilling fluid and may break down under this hydrostatic pressure...” [20].

Response: BLM, in conjunction with WDEQ and WOGCC, requires operators to use fresh water when 

drilling through fresh water zones, to set surface casing to depths below the fresh water zones, and to 

cement the outside of the full length of the surface casing back to the surface.

Comment: Since oil and gas are depletable resources, it is essential to discuss what consequences will 

result from depleting them at the most rapid possible pace (as BLM is proposing for the Jonah and PAPA 

fields). On the issue of water resources, ground water is essentially a depletable resource given that 

recharge rates are so low. Since ground water contamination can be impossible or difficult to correct, 

potable ground water should also be treated as a depletable resource. Because surface waters are so 

depleted in the Colorado River Basin - and because so much water would be used in the PRA for gas 

production and other activities - the agency must devote considerable attention to the conservation 

potential of surface waters.

Response: The Jonah and Pinedale Anticline are developing the Lance Formation, which is a very dense, 

tight sand formation with a porosity tighter than concrete. The Lance has about a 9,000 foot overburden 

zone. The only anticipated result of depleting the formation is the extraction of natural gas. Groundwater 

conservation and management fall under the jurisdiction of the State of Wyoming Engineer’s Office. The 

RMP sets a framework for managing a variety of resources, as well as for future projects. Impacts to 

ground water are typically addressed in project-level NEPA documents.

Comment: Even casual observers are aware of the both the benefits and deleterious impacts associated 

with both of the existing fields; furthermore everyone is aware that the proposed year-round drilling and 

Pinedale RMP A27-295 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

increased number of wells going forward for six decades is in some state of BLM decision-making now. 

It is unreasonable to think that if implemented, this draft mineral plan, no matter which alternative is 

selected, would not produce adverse air and water impacts at a minimum, and many other environmental, 

economic, and social impacts as well. 

Response: Chapter 4 of the final EIS projects anticipated impacts.

Comment: The Pinedale RMP DEIS indicates on page 2-35 that a “Level II ground water study of the 

Riley Ridge/La Barge area would be completed to define what additional ground water monitoring and 

protective measures would be necessary with regard to subsurface activities conducted in the area (such 

as oil and gas drilling activities).” It is inappropriate for the BLM to attempt to implement a site-specific 

management decision of this type in an RMP. See BLM Handbook H-1601-1, II.B.2.a, pg 13 (Rel. 1-1693 

3/11/05). It is particularly inappropriate for the BLM to impose or develop new requirements as part of 

the No Action alternative, which as its name suggests, is intended to continue management under existing 

directives, not new requirements. Further, the BLM has not explained why such additional studies are 

necessary, why they were not prepared in connection with the RMP revision if necessary, or who would 

be paying for the study. The BLM should clarify this statement in the Final EIS. To the extent the BLM 

intends to require oil and gas lessees in the area to pay for such a study, the BLM must explain how or 

why it believes it has such authority.

Response: The referenced statement is a direct recapitulation of text from the existing RMP approved in 

1988. Alternative 1 would continue implementation of the decisions in the 1988 plan. NEPA requires the 

consideration/analysis of a No Action alternative. For the purposes of the draft EIS/RMP, continuing the 

management prescriptions in the 1988 plan is the No Action alternative and as such it is included 

verbatim from the 1988 ROD. The referenced text is not a new requirement. The 1988 ROD does not 

specify how the study would be funded. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) 

Comment: Adding over 7,000 new gas rigs over the next 10 to 15 years would put an already fragile 

ecosystem at even more risk.

Response: The majority of the wells considered in the RFD for the different alternatives would occur as 

infill wells in areas currently approved for extensive oil and gas development through existing EISs, such 

as the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Field. The Jonah Infill EIS approved in March 2006 allows an 

additional 3,100 wells in that field alone. A high percentage of the projected new wells in the RMP would 

be drilled from existing well pads.

Comment: The Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario: The BLM’s Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development (“RFD”) Scenario for the Pinedale Resource Area is inaccurate and already out-of-date. The 

BLM must revise the RFD Scenario in light of approved and proposed oil and gas development within the 

resource area. The BLM also needs to include information explaining the purpose of the RFD Scenario 

and its role in the planning process. 

The BLM should include a statement in the Final EIS, the Record of Decision, and the actual Resource 

Management Plan for the Pinedale Resource Area confirming that the RFD Scenario is not a planning 

decision or limitation on the level of development that can be authorized within the Pinedale Resource 

Area. The BLM has previously defined the RFD as the “baseline scenario of activity assuming all 

potentially productive areas can be open under standard lease terms and conditions, except those areas 

designated as closed to leasing by law, regulation or executive order.” BLM Instruction Memorandum 

2004-089, Attachment 1-1 (Jan. 16, 2004). The RFD is neither a Planning Decision nor the “No Action 

Alternative” in the NEPA document. “In the NEPA document, the RFD based on scenarios adjusted 

A27-296 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

under each alternative to reflect varying levels of administrative designations, management practices, and 

mitigation measures.” BLM Instruction Memorandum 2004-089, Attachment 1-1 (Jan. 16, 2004). 

On several occasions, the Interior Board of Land Appeals has confirmed that the RFD Scenario is not a 

limitation on development, including at least two decisions regarding the Pinedale Resource Area. The 

IBLA has made it clear that the RFD Scenario is neither a planning decision, nor a limitation on future 

development. Wyoming Outdoor Council, 164 IBLA 84, 99 (2004) (holding with respect to the Pinedale 

RMP that the RFD Scenario does not establish “a point past which future exploration and development is 

prohibited”); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 159 IBLA 220, 234 (2003) (holding that the Book 

Cliffs RMP did not establish a well limit); Wyoming Outdoor Council, et al. IBLA No. 2006-155 at *26 

(June 28, 2006) (holding that the Pinedale RMP does not restrict the number of wells that can be drilled 

within the Pinedale Resource Area); Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, et al., IBLA No. 2004-316 at *7 

(Oct. 6, 2004) (citing Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 159 IBLA at 234) (holding that the “RFD 

scenario cannot be considered to establish a limit on the number of oil and gas wells that can be drilled in 

a resource area.”). In order to prevent future litigation and appeals, the BLM should include language in 

the Pinedale RMP itself describing the purpose of the RFD Scenario.

Response: BLM’s Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) recently conducted a 

review of the RFD (June 28, 2007) and concluded that the numbers presented in the draft EIS are current, 

valid, and applicable. You are correct in your statement that an RFD is neither a planning decision nor a 

NEPA alternative. It is, however, an estimate of activity from which the impact analysis is developed. The 

definition for the term “Reasonable Foreseeable Development” has been added to the glossary for the 

final EIS. As stated in Chapter 1, BLM is bound by its governing regulations, including current and valid 

Instruction Memoranda; consequently it is not necessary to repeat or state their contents in the final EIS. 

Comment: the BLM's prediction of future activity appears to be based on the inaccurate prediction that 

oil and gas activity in the area may begin to decline in 2007 when prices were expected to begin 

declining, or at least remain flat. See Mineral Occurrence Report, pg. 4-21. In fact, as evidenced by the 

proposed infill development in the PAPA, exploration and production activity will continue beyond 2007. 

The Energy Information Administration currently projects that Henry Hub prices for natural gas will 

range from $5.46 to $7.23 for the years 2007 through 2030. See Energy Information Administration, 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html. The BLM's RFD Scenario must be updated to reflect the 

trend for increasing, not decreasing natural gas prices.

Response: The final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil 

and gas resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. This RFD 

does not predict a decline in oil and gas activity beginning in 2007. It states that “these large production 

volumes assume continued significant rates of drilling and discovery of additional oil and gas.” See last 

paragraph of page 56 of the RFD. Additionally, Table 15 shows future gas production increasing through 

2014. These increases in production are directly tied to projected increases in drilling and completion 

activities. 

Comment: Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management: The referenced RFD 

Scenario for Alternative 1 on page 4-52 conflicts with the RFD Scenario set forth in Table 4-2, page 4-48, 

and Appendix A10. The text on page 4-52 suggests that 7,927 wells from federal minerals will be 

developed, while the RFD Scenario in Table 4-2 and Appendix 10 states that only 7,192 wells and federal 

minerals are projected under the BLM’s RFD Scenario for Alternative 1. Similarly, on page 4-244 (the 

cumulative impacts section) the BLM suggests that 7,927 wells will be drilled under the Alternative 1 

RFD Scenario. The BLM must correct its RFD Scenario and ensure that it is consistently applied 

throughout the EIS.

Pinedale RMP A27-297 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Response: Alternative 1 projections of future federal wells drilled should read 7,192 wells and 8,439 total 

wells. The final EIS has been corrected, where appropriate, to reflect the correct well projection for 

federal wells.

Comment: Impacts Under Alternative 2: The RFD Scenario discussed in the text on page 4-58 again 

appears to conflict with the RFD Scenario for Alternative 2 expressed in Table 4-2 and Appendix A10. 

On page 4-58 the BLM suggests the RFD Scenario for Alternative 2 is 8,465 wells, while Table 4-2 

suggests 7,804 wells.

Response: Alternative 2 federal well projections should read 7,804 wells and 9,051 total wells. The final 

EIS has been corrected, where appropriate, to reflect the correct well projection for federal wells.

Comment: Finally, the BLM again incorporates a conflicting RFD Scenario for the BLM’s cumulative 

impacts analysis compared to the RFD Scenarios in Table 4-2 or Appendix A10. See RMP DEIS, pgs. 4-

244 - 4-247.

Response: Well count projections in Table 4-2 and Table A10-1 of the draft EIS are correct. Incorrect 

well projections on pages 4-244 through 4-246 of the draft EIS have been corrected to match the well 

count projections in the subject tables.

Comment: I am concerned that the BLMs reasonable and foreseeable development scenario for the 

Pinedale RMP is outdated (3 years old) and does not address the 20-25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas 

believed to be present in the area. The BLM is also not taking our national energy needs into account in 

its RMP. Please develop a new alternative incorporating our energy needs and the new discoveries and 

activity in the Pinedale area.

Response: The final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil 

and gas resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other oil 

and gas development environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area 

assume full field development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a 

reasonable and foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period. 

Comment: The BLM should make the following changes for a Record of Decision: -Update the RFD to 

reflect the 20-25 trillion cubic feet of potential gas supplies -Create a new alternative which will allow the 

full development of the resource -Reduce the seasonal restriction and surface disturbance portions of the 

Pinedale RMP -Develop new cost effective mitigations which protect other resources such as wildlife, but 

do not unnecessarily inhibit natural gas development.

Response: The final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil 

and gas resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other oil 

and gas development environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area, 

assume full field development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a 

reasonable and foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period. The draft 

EIS presents four alternatives that range from strong commodity production to strong environmental 

protection. The plan does take the nation’s energy needs into account,, but it also takes the other resources 

values within the planning area into account, as required by numerous laws and regulations. 

Comment: The RFD that the BLM drafted for the DEIS using data which is outdated and does not 

consider the gas activity in the area or the discovered 20 - 25 trillion cubic feet of gas within just the 

Pinedale Anticline.

A27-298 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: BLM’s Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) recently conducted a 

review of the RFD (June 28, 2007) and concluded that the numbers presented in the draft EIS are current, 

valid, and applicable.

Comment: The potential resource area information needs to be updated based on new findings and 

current field production and well results. This would affect all acreage and percentages and would need to 

be reanalyzed. Deep potential also needs to be updated based on new findings and current field 

production and well results.

Response: The RFD was based on the best available information at the time it was developed. RMG 

recently reviewed the projects and determined the estimates are still applicable. 

Comment: Alternative 3 severely and needlessly limits energy production. The Preferred Alternative is 

based on a limited RFD that one could argue is outdated. Any Record of Decision should be based on a 

more accurate RFD that one could argue is outdated. Any Record of Decision should be based on the size 

and scope of both the Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline.

Response: The draft EIS presents four alternatives that range from strong commodity production to 

strong environmental protection. The plan does take the nation’s energy needs into account, but it also 

takes the other resources values within the planning area into account, as required by numerous laws and 

regulations. Alternative 2 purposely addresses enhanced commodity production, whereas Alternative 3 

purposely addresses enhanced surface resource protection. This was done to meet the NEPA requirement 

to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. 

The final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil and gas 

resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other oil and gas 

development environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area assume full 

field development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a reasonable and 

foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period.

Comment: With the BLM’s DEIS being over 3 years old, I am concerned the Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) is outdated. The RFD states 7,000 wells will be drilled over 20 years, yet the BLM 

already has applications for projects in the Pinedale Anticline over 4,000 wells and this represents only a 

small portion of the Pinedale BLM area. It is incumbent on the BLM to develop an RFD equal to the 

known resource estimated by industry equal to 20 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Response: The final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil 

and gas resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other oil 

and gas development environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area 

assume full field development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a 

reasonable and foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period. BLM’s 

Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) recently conducted a review of the RFD 

(June 28, 2007) and concluded that the numbers presented in the draft EIS are current, valid, and 

applicable. The draft EIS presents four alternatives that range from strong commodity production to 

strong environmental protection. The plan does take the nation’s energy needs into account, but it also 

takes the other resources values within the planning area into account, as required by numerous laws and 

regulations.

Comment: Update the RFD to reflect the 20-25 trillion cubic feet of potential gas supplies. Create a new 

alternative which allow the full development of the resource. Reduce the seasonal restriction and surface 

Pinedale RMP A27-299 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

disturbance portions of the Pinedale RMP. Develop new cost effective mitigations which protect other 

resources such as wildlife, but do not unnecessarily inhibit natural gas development. 

Response: The final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil 

and gas resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other oil 

and gas development environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area 

assume full field development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a 

reasonable and foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period. 

BLM’s Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) recently conducted a review of the 

RFD (June 28, 2007) and concluded that the number presented in the draft EIS is current, valid, and 

applicable. The draft EIS presents four alternatives that range from strong commodity production to 

strong environmental protection. The plan does take the nation’s energy needs into account, but it also 

takes the other resources values within the planning area into account, as required by numerous laws and 

regulations.

Comment: I am concerned that the BLM’s reasonable and foreseeable development scenario for the 

Pinedale RMP is outdated (3 years old) and does not address the 20-25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas 

believed to be present in the area. The BLM is also not taking our national energy needs into account in 

its RMP. Please develop a new alternative incorporating our energy needs and the new discoveries and 

activity in the Pinedale area.

Response: The final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil 

and gas resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other oil 

and gas development environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area 

assume full field development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a 

reasonable and foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period. BLM’s 

Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) recently conducted a review of the RFD 

(June 28, 2007) and concluded that the number presented in the draft EIS is current, valid, and applicable. 

The draft EIS presents four alternatives that range from strong commodity production to strong 

environmental protection. The plan does take the nation’s energy needs into account, but it also takes the 

other resources values within the planning area into effect, as required by numerous laws and regulations.

Comment: First, I’m a bit worried about the impact your reasonable foreseeable development (RFD) 

section might have on our national security - not to mention our state and federal treasuries. We all know 

that there is a very significant natural gas resource under this area - and we all know that its development 

is crucial in improving our nation’s national security outlook. I believe we need to keep land open for oil 

and gas development if we’re ever going to come close to meeting our nation’s demand for gas and oil! 

Please keep this in mind when revising the RFD section.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to present a reasonable range of alternatives. Accordingly, the 

document addresses varying levels of oil and gas leasing and development. Leasing and development 

would continue to occur in the planning area under each of the alternatives addressed. The final RFD 

report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil and gas resource in the 

planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other oil and gas development 

environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area assume full field 

development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a reasonable and 

foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period. BLM’s Wyoming State 

Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) recently conducted a review of the RFD (June 28, 2007) 

and concluded that the number presented in the draft EIS is current, valid, and applicable.

A27-300 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Comment: In some ways it looks like you’ve gotten too far “in the weeds” in your reasonable foreseeable 

development numbers and some of the restrictions you’re trying to apply to the oil and gas industry. The 

purpose of an RMP is to chart a general course for a field office - and let project specific EA’s and EIS’s 

analyze site by site impacts a project might have. You’d be well served to consult with the industry to 

determine how much THEY believe can happen over the life of this plan.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to present a reasonable range of alternatives and make 

projections of the impacts associated with each of those alternatives. Accordingly, the document 

addresses varying levels of oil and gas leasing and development. Leasing and development would 

continue to occur in the planning area under each of the alternatives. Industry was contacted prior to 

developing the RFD projections.

Comment: The RFD is inadequate. The newly discovered natural gas resource in the Pinedale Anticline 

justifies an update to the RFD. Each alternative needs a chart describing the recoverable resource. How 

can we decide which alternative to support if we do not know how much resources will be lost and never 

recovered?

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to present a reasonable range of alternatives. Accordingly, the 

document addresses varying levels of oil and gas leasing and development. Leasing and development 

would continue to occur in the planning area under each of the alternatives addressed. The final RFD 

report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil and gas resource in the 

planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other oil and gas development 

environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area assume full field 

development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a reasonable and 

foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period. BLM’s Wyoming State 

Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) recently conducted a review of the RFD (June 28, 2007) 

and concluded that the number presented in the draft EIS is current, valid, and applicable.

Comment: EM urges BLM to use net effects as a metric for managing the oil and gas program instead of 

well counts because it fits with both BLM’s land management mission and the NEPA process. 

Accordingly, we further urge BLM to establish clear reclamation objectives in the final RMP based on 

experience from the Green River Basin. Importantly, BLM should affirm in the final RMP that where 

surface disturbance is less than analyzed in the RMP, more wells can be drilled without exceeding 

identified impact thresholds. Reclaimed acreage should be excluded from surface disturbance 

calculations.

Response: Appendix 10 of the draft EIS provides the metric for converting the RFD to acres of projected 

disturbance. The following has been added to the final EIS: “The RFD is a projection of the number of 

wells that could potentially be developed under the various alternatives. It is included in the draft 

EIS/RMP for analysis purposes and is not a cap on the number of wells that would ultimately be 

developed. The actual number of wells could exceed the RFD if the associated surface disturbance and 

impacts to other resources do not exceed the analysis thresholds.” The RMP establishes the framework for 

reclamation processes, but is not intended to provide site- or project-specific standards or procedures. 

Specific standards, seed mixes, invasive weed control, and recovery time would be developed through 

project-specific NEPA analysis.

Comment: The RFD should take into consideration smaller scale and ongoing field development in 

addition to new significant projects, and specifically consider the needs of these development and 

delineation programs in evaluating future RFD adequacy. The BLM should continue considering the 

affects of long-term surface disturbance rather than number of wells as the governing criteria for 

determining whether analyzed objectives and reasonable foreseeable development have been exceeded. 

Pinedale RMP A27-301 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

However, it is important for BLM to recognize in the RFD and RMP that where surface disturbance is 

less per well than analyzed in the RMP, more wells can be drilled in many areas without exceeding 

identified impacts and that restored acreage should be excluded from surface disturbance calculations.

Response: The RFD is based on the anticipated well development across the planning area. It includes 

exploratory/wildcat well development, as well as the intense infill development in the existing fields. The 

following has been added to the final EIS: “The RFD is a projection of the number of wells that could 

potentially be developed under the various alternatives. It is included in the draft EIS/RMP for analysis 

purposes and is not a cap on the number of wells that would ultimately be developed. The actual number 

of wells could exceed the RFD if the associated surface disturbance and impacts to other resources do not 

exceed the analysis thresholds.” Once reclaimed areas meet the project- or site-specific reclamation 

objective they would not longer be considered as disturbed acres.

Comment: EOG also encourages the BLM to redefine its definition of oil and gas potential. In defining 

areas with low, moderate, high, and very high potential for oil and gas development, as expressed on Map 

4-1, the BLM focuses on the number of wells per township. See also Pinedale RMP Mineral Occurrence 

Report, pg. 4-29 (defining oil and gas potential based upon number of wells per township); RFD Scenario 

Final Report, pg. 51 (same). In most cases, the number of wells per township does not define the potential 

for oil and gas development or overall production, but reflects the geologic and reservoir characteristics of 

the producing formation. For example, the discontinuous, stacked, lenticular sand bodies located within 

the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline Fields require relatively dense downhole development to recovery the 

resource present. Other areas of the resource area are still incredibly productive in terms of the overall oil 

and gas production and potential, but the resource can be recovered using more typical downhole 

densities. Increased density does not always equate to increased productivity.

Response: Yes, our definition does focus on an average number of wells per township (well density), and 

does reflect reservoir characteristics of potential producing formations in each area. BLM agrees that it 

does not necessarily equate to increased well productivity in the areas analyzed, although BLM did 

project overall productivity associated with existing development and new projected development (Tables 

14 and 15 of the RFD Scenario Final Report). BLM used this method in the EIS analysis because BLM 

needed to analyze the impacts of future development and overall cumulative development of the oil and 

gas resource. BLM believes that the best way to evaluate the impacts of potential future development is to 

determine new and cumulative surface disturbance associated with that development. To do that, it is 

critical to determine the locations of existing development and project locations and densities of future 

development activities.

Comment: EOG also encourages the BLM to revise the oil and gas potential for portions of the Big 

Piney/La Barge area. The BLM incorrectly assumes in the Mineral Occurrence Report that future activity 

in the Big Piney/La Barge area “will depend mainly on industry being able to access surface locations to 

drill new wells.” See Pinedale RMP Mineral Occurrence Report, pg. 4-31. It is not clear if this sentence 

refers to the entire La Barge Platform, or just the northern extensions that approach Forest Service System 

lands. In either event, BLM’s analysis of future potential does not account for existing inventories of drill 

sites, proven undeveloped resources, or improvements in oil and gas drilling, completion, and recovery 

technologies that will almost certainly result in additional activity and production. Improved technology 

could also result in production from formations that were or are currently considered uneconomic (i.e. 

shall production). The BLM’s information regarding future oil and gas potential is also admittedly out of 

date, dating back to 2001. In just the last few years there have been significant improvements in 

technology and understanding of the geology of the area. The BLM also admits that it only conducted a 

“very limited review of technical data” regarding future oil and gas potential. By separate cover, EOG has 

attached a map to the Pinedale Field Office and the Reservoir Management Group indicating EOG’s 

current estimates of oil and gas potential in the Big Piney/La Barge area and encourages the BLM to 

A27-302 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

modify both its oil and gas potential map, and the boundaries of the Intensively Developed Field in the 

Big Piney/La Barge area.

Response: The final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil 

and gas resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. In that 

report the reference to the Big Piney/La Barge area and the assumption that future activity “will depend 

mainly on industry being able to access surface locations to drill new wells” was referring to national 

forest lands (see page 52 of that report). The discussion for the Big Piney/La Barge area also states that 

“Drilling in this large area of moderate development potential will vary from relatively dispersed, as 

many as four well locations per square mile, to local areas of more intense drilling activity. There will 

also be extensive areas with little or no drilling activity. Some of the drilling in these moderate 

development potential areas will be for replacement and infill wells in areas where oil and gas production 

is ongoing” (see page 52 of that report). 

Thank you for the map with your estimate of future potential in the Big Piney/La Barge area. BLM had 

already identified Big Piney/La Barge as an existing area of intensive oil and gas development, with 

future oil and gas development potential being moderate and with coalbed natural gas having a high to 

low potential for future development. Since no additional information was presented to indicate future 

development potential is higher than estimated for that entire area, BLM chose not to change our 

projections at this time. 

BLM agrees that improvements in oil and gas drilling, completion, and recovery technologies will result 

in additional drilling activity and production. The RFD Scenario Final Report does identify a number of 

advances in technology that have increased exploration, development, and production efficiency and 

projects that these trends will continue. Please see the “Review of Exploratory and Production Activity 

and Operations” discussion in the subject report for specifics on technological advances. BLM also agrees 

that proven resources need to be accounted for. A review of available information on proved oil and gas 

reserves within the field office area is located in the section titled “Assessments of Oil and Gas 

Resources”. Also, all active existing and proposed new oil and gas development projects were reviewed 

and considered when BLM’s projections of future development potential were made. Information 

provided in the RFD Scenario Final Report regarding technology and understanding of the area, as well as 

future oil and gas potential, was updated with the latest available information. That information was 

current to September 2006. BLM believes that it is sufficiently current for use in this document.

Comment: As discussed in more detail below, the RFD Scenarios for each of the alternatives used to 

qualitatively analyze potential air quality impacts in Appendix A19 conflicts with the RFD Scenarios 

expressed in Table 4-2, page 4-48, and Appendix A10. In each case, the RFD Scenarios utilized in the 

BLM’s air analysis are higher than the scenarios in Table 4-2 and Appendix A10. For example, the air 

quality RFD Scenario anticipates 6,456 wells under Alternative 3, while the RFD Scenario for Alternative 

3 in Table 4-2 and Appendix A10 is only 5,924 wells. The BLM must explain and correct this 

inconsistency. 

Response: The tables are consistent. The RFD in Table A19-4 in Appendix 19 of the draft EIS projects 

the number of wells for all mineral jurisdictions within the planning area; whereas Table 4-2 and Table 

A10-1 in Appendix 10 only provide an RFD projection for federal wells. Table A10-7, like Table A19-4, 

projects an RFD for all mineral jurisdictions. 

Comment: The BLM’s Reasonably Foreseeable Development (“RFD”) Scenario for the Pinedale 

Resource Area is woefully out-of-date and inaccurate. The BLM needs to include information explaining 

the purpose of the RFD Scenario and its role in the planning process. The BLM must also significantly 

update and revise the RFD Scenario in light of approved and proposed oil and gas development within the 

Pinedale RMP A27-303 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

resource area. EOG has attached hereto and incorporates herein by this reference, a detailed report 

regarding the sufficiency of BLM’s RFD Scenario Final Report. As analyzed in detail in the attached 

report, the BLM’s RFD Scenario Final Report did not comply with the BLM’s requirements under 

Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2004-089 (January 16, 2004) or the BLM's Land Use 

Planning Handbook H-1624-1, Planning for Fluid Minerals Resources, chapter III, B.1, 2, 4, (Release 1-

1583, 5/7/90), as modified.

Response: Information provided in the RFD Scenario Final Report regarding technology and 

understanding of the area, as well as future oil and gas potential, was updated with the latest available 

information. That information was current to September 2006. BLM believes that it is sufficiently current 

for use in this document.

Comment: In order to prevent future litigation and appeals, the BLM must include language in the 

Pinedale RMP itself describing the purpose of the RFD Scenario, and the fact that the RFD Scenario is 

not a planning decision or limitation on future development.

Response: The following has been added to the final EIS: “The RFD is a projection of the number of 

wells that could potentially be developed under the various alternatives. It is included in the draft 

EIS/RMP for analysis purposes and is not a cap on the number of wells that would ultimately be 

developed. The actual number of wells could exceed the RFD if the associated surface disturbance and 

impacts to other resources do not exceed the analysis thresholds.” You are correct in your statement that 

an RFD is neither a planning decision nor a NEPA alternative. It is, however, an estimate of activity from 

which the impact analysis is developed. The definition for the term “Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development” has been added to the glossary for the final EIS.

Comment: Further, the BLM must update the RFD Scenario in light of the BLM’s recent approval of the 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project (“JIDP”) in March of 2006, and the proposal from the Pinedale Anticline 

operators to significantly increase development. The unrestricted RFD Scenario for the Pinedale Resource 

Area anticipated a total of 7,903 wells drilled from up to 5,687 wells on federal minerals. The JIDP 

approved the drilling and development of 3,100 wells from 3,100 pads, and the BLM recently released a 

SDEIS for the Pinedale Anticline area proposing the approval of 4,399 wells from 250 new well pads 

(over the 700 producing wells/wellpads authorized in the PAPA ROD in 2000). The operators in the 

South Piney area have also proposed at least 210 coalbed natural gas wells, a proposal currently being 

studied by the BLM. Thus, at the very least, the BLM is aware of 7,709 wells that have been permitted or 

actually proposed, before the RMP has even been approved. This level of development surpasses the 

BLM’s anticipated levels of development under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, and is only a few wells below 

the unrestricted RFD Scenario or the RFD Scenario for Alternative 2. 

As evidenced by the BLM’s Mineral Occurrence Report, the BLM did not anticipate the increased level 

of development in both the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline Fields. The Mineral Occurrence Report states 

that only 1,250 additional wells will be drilled in Jonah Field, and that only a total of 1,800 wells (1,100 

more than approved in the PAPA ROD) will be drilled in the Pinedale Anticline Area. See Mineral 

Occurrence Report, pg. 4-31. The projected levels of development in Jonah Field and the Pinedale 

Anticline are thus, very inaccurate. In the Pinedale Anticline area alone, the BLM’s projection is off by 

2,599 wells.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to present a reasonable range of alternatives. Accordingly, the 

document addresses varying levels of oil and gas leasing and development. Leasing and development 

would continue to occur in the planning area under each of the alternatives addressed. The final RFD 

report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil and gas resource in the 

planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other oil and gas development 

A27-304 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area assume full field 

development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a reasonable and 

foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period. BLM’s Wyoming State 

Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) recently conducted a review of the RFD (June 28, 2007) 

and concluded that the number presented in the draft EIS is current, valid, and applicable.

Comment: The referenced RFD Scenario for Alternative 1 on page 4-52 conflicts with the RFD Scenario 

set forth in Table 4-2, page 4-48, and Appendix A10. The text on page 4-52 suggests that 7,927 wells 

from federal minerals will be developed while the RFD Scenario in Table 4-2 and Appendix 10 states that 

only 7,192 wells are projected under the BLM’s RFD Scenario for Alternative 1. Similarly, on page 4-245 

(the cumulative impacts section) the BLM suggests that 7,927 wells will be drilled on federal minerals 

under the Alternative 1 RFD Scenario. The 7,927 well figure appears to represent the number of noncoalbed natural gas wells that will be drilled on all mineral types in the BLM’s 2006 RFD Scenario Final 

Report, but that is not indicated in the text on pages 4-245. See RMP DEIS, pg. 2-245; compare to BLM 

RFD Scenario Final Report, Table 13. Because the BLM is intending to analyze the cumulative impacts 

of development in Section 4.19.8, the BLM should include the entire RFD Scenario for federal and nonfederal minerals as expressed in Table 13 of the BLM RFD Scenario Final Report. The BLM must correct 

its RFD Scenario, and ensure that it is consistently applied throughout the EIS.

Response: The final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil 

and gas resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. In that 

report, the reference to the Big Piney/La Barge area and the assumption that future activity “will depend 

mainly on industry being able to access surface locations to drill new wells” was referring to national 

forest lands (see page 52 of that report). The discussion for the Big Piney/La Barge area also states that 

“Drilling in this large area of moderate development potential will vary from relatively dispersed, as 

many as four well locations per square mile, to local areas of more intense drilling activity. There will 

also be extensive areas with little or no drilling activity. Some of the drilling in these moderate 

development potential areas will be for replacement and infill wells in areas where oil and gas production 

is ongoing” (see page 52 of that report). 

Thank you for the map with your estimate of future potential in the Big Piney/La Barge area. BLM had 

already identified Big Piney/La Barge as an existing area of intensive oil and gas development, with 

future oil and gas development potential being moderate and with coalbed natural gas having a high to 

low potential for future development. Since no additional information was presented to indicate future 

development potential is higher than estimated for that entire area, BLM chose not to change its 

projections at this time. 

BLM agrees that improvements in oil and gas drilling, completion, and recovery technologies will result 

in additional drilling activity and production. The RFD Scenario Final Report does identify a number of 

advances in technology that have increased exploration, development, and production efficiency and 

projects that these trends will continue. Please see the “Review of Exploratory and Production Activity 

and Operations” discussion in the subject report for specifics on technological advances. BLM also agrees 

that proven resources need to be accounted for. A review of available information on proved oil and gas 

reserves within the field office area is located in the section titled “Assessments of Oil and Gas 

Resources”. Also, all active existing and proposed new oil and gas development projects were reviewed 

and considered when BLM’s projections of future development potential were made. Information 

provided in the RFD Scenario Final Report regarding technology and understanding of the area, as well as 

future oil and gas potential was updated with the latest available information. That information was 

current to September 2006. BLM believes that it is sufficiently current for use in this document.

Pinedale RMP A27-305 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: Once again the RFD Scenario discussed in the text on page 4-58 conflicts with the RFD 

Scenario for Alternative 2 expressed in Table 4-2 and Appendix A10. On page 4-58 the BLM suggests the 

RFD Scenario for federal minerals under Alternative 2 is 8,465 wells, while Table 4-2 suggests 7,804 

wells. The BLM’s cumulative impacts analysis on page 2-245 is similarly incorrect because it suggests 

8,465 wells will be drilled on federal minerals in the Pinedale Resource Area.

Response: Alternative 2 federal well projections should read 7,804 wells and 9,051 total wells. The EIS 

has been corrected, where appropriate, to reflect the correct well projection for federal wells.

Comment: Finally, the BLM again incorporates a conflicting RFD Scenario for the BLM’s cumulative 

impacts analysis compared to the RFD Scenarios in Table 4-2 or Appendix A10. See RMP DEIS, pgs. 4-

244 - 4-247.

Response: The final EIS has been corrected, where appropriate, to reflect the correct well projection for 

federal wells.

Comment: In the Draft EIS, BLM notes most of the increase is the result of oil and gas exploration and 

development. Oil and gas development is expected to nearly quadruple from an estimated 2,173 in 2001 

to 8;383 in 2021. Further, approximately only 61% of the Federal mineral estate is leased (page 3-39). It 

is unclear, however, how this estimate was calculated. Based on a combined total of approximately 8,700 

wells (including existing and proposed development) projected in the recent Jonah Infill and Pinedale 

Anticline EIS’s, EPA is concerned that the Draft BS may have underestimated the number of wells that 

will be developed in the Pinedale RMP and we recommend BLM provide a detailed explanation of how 

the development was estimated in the Final EIS.

Response: The 61% leased figure is based on the acres under lease as of June 2004 compared to the total 

federal mineral estate in the planning area. The final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most 

up-to-date analysis of the oil and gas resource in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS 

over earlier analyses. Other oil and gas development environmental analyses recently prepared or 

proposed within the planning area assume full field development of the oil and gas throughout the life of 

the field. The RFD estimates a reasonable and foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 

through 2020 period. BLM’s Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) recently 

conducted a review of the RFD (June 28, 2007) and concluded that the number presented in the draft EIS 

is current, valid, and applicable. 

Comment: We support BLM’s approach of considering the effects of long-term surface disturbance 

rather than numbers of wells as the governing criteria for determining whether analyzed objectives and 

reasonable foreseeable development have been exceeded. However, it is important for BLM to recognize 

in the Reasonable Foreseeable Development scenario (RFD) and Resource Management Plan (RMP) that 

where surface disturbance is less per well than analyzed in the RMP, more wells can be drilled in many 

areas without exceeding identified impacts and that reclaimed acreage will be excluded from surface 

disturbance calculations. 

Page A10-1 states: “Approximately two-thirds of the projected wells would occur in the Jonah and 

Pinedale Anticline Fields. The Pinedale Anticline would be developed with multiple wells per pad on an 

average surface spacing of 4 to 6 well pads per square mile (120- to 160-acre surface spacing per pad). 

The Jonah Field would predominantly be developed with single well pads at an average of 64 pads per 

square mile (10-acre surface spacing per pad). The greater Big Piney-La Barge area, Castle Creek Field, 

and the rest of the planning area would be developed with single well pads on an average surface spacing 

of 16 or fewer well pads per square mile (40-acre surface spacing per pad).” 

A27-306 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

• The RFD provides for 4,671 conventional gas wells from 4,671 pads on 40 acre spacing (16 wells per 

section). This includes Riley Ridge, Jonah, Big Piney La-barge and the rest of the planning area excluding 

Jonah. 

• One-third of 7,136 wells equals 2,376 wells reasonably foreseeable for these areas (two-thirds of 7,136 

wells equals 4,759 wells); 4,759 wells for Jonah and Pinedale leaves 1,600 wells for Pinedale considering 

that 3,100 wells were approved for Jonah. The 2006 ROD for the Pinedale Anticline approved 900 well 

pad locations and authorized the completion of 700 wells. 

• Additionally, Appendix 10 indicates that only Pinedale would have multiple well pads and Jonah and 

the rest of the area would use single well pads. 5,136 wells on single well pads are shown in the RFD; 

subtracting the 3,100 approved for Jonah leaves 2,036 wells RFD for the rest of the area. 

Clearly, our primary concern is that the number of wells and their associated surface disturbance 

projected by the RFD is low and does not reflect the actual oil and gas development projected to occur 

during the planning period of 2001 through 2020. The RFD for the DEIS was finalized in September 

2006. The Pinedale Field Office (FO) also developed a Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential 

Report (Mineral Potential Report), which was finalized in January 2003. The RFD draws upon the 

conclusions reached in the Mineral Potential Report. The 3-year time frame between the development of 

the Mineral Potential Report and the RFD and the insufficient information upon which they are based are 

responsible for the inaccurate conclusions reached by the RFD. 

The RFD and Mineral Potential Report do not accurately project future conditions. The RFD is 

fundamentally flawed because it failed to include all the available data at the time it was written in 2006. 

Although the 2003 projections of well development were revised in the RFD, the methodology and 

procedures used to project 7,136 wells are not disclosed in the RFD. More importantly, the Mineral 

Potential Report, upon which the RFD was based, was not revised with more recent information from 

Resource Management Plan Planning Area (RMPPA) operators. 

It is critical that BLM revise the RFD and Mineral Potential Report with the most current data available to 

provide the basis for a more accurate RFD in the final EIS. We are puzzled that the Pinedale FO did not 

contact the RMPPA operators for their estimated projections as soon as it was realized that the protracted 

time frame for development of the DEIS had rendered the Mineral Potential Report inaccurate. The RFD 

could have been revised to provide an updated projection of future well development rather than attempt 

to “fix” some of its deficiencies using pre-2003 information. The 2006 RFD and 2003 Mineral Potential 

Report contain the following deficiencies: 

• They were written without complete evaluation of all available data, especially current data and 

projections from the RMPPA operators. 

• They do not provide a basis for a realistic cumulative effects analysis by underestimating the 

number of wells that will be drilled during the planning period. 

• The RFDs did not consider how economic factors drive the development and/or use of 

new/unconventional technologies, resulting in well count/surface disturbance projections that are 

too low. 

• They do not address or allow for future activities based upon new development or unanticipated 

circumstances. 

• They lack a quantitative evaluation of produced water disposal issues, specifically the drilling of 

disposal wells. 

• • They lack a quantitative evaluation of the effects of commingling, well life and resulting 

plugged and abandoned (P&A) wells. 

Pinedale RMP A27-307 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

In consideration of the significant restrictions on the oil and gas industry as a result of decisions proposed 

in the DEIS, the underestimated projected well count and associated surface disturbance for the 20-year 

planning period precludes a thorough, balanced analysis of minerals development in the DEIS. As such it 

will render the resultant management decisions invalid well before the 20-year planning period ends. 

Therefore, it is crucial that an updated RFD and analysis be included in the Final EIS. 

OIL AND GAS CHAPTER 1 Page 1 Table 1-1 “Almost 400,000 acres (one-fourth of the planning area) 

are not subject to the restrictions and mitigation proposed in the RMP.” Comment: While we recognize 

BLM has no jurisdiction on non-Federal lands, it is not uncommon for BLM mitigation measures to be 

adopted by other agencies. Therefore, BLM needs to explain how it will coordinate with Wyoming Fish 

and Game, WOGCC, and other government entities to provide consistency across jurisdictions. The DEIS 

claims anticipated impacts that could affect RMP decisions on these lands are included in the cumulative 

impact analysis; however, they are not specifically identified. 

Response: The final EIS has been updated to provide further explanation of the RFD for oil and gas. The 

final RFD report completed in September 2006 is the most up-to-date analysis of the oil and gas resource 

in the planning area and has precedence in the draft EIS over earlier analyses. Other oil and gas 

development environmental analyses recently prepared or proposed within the planning area assume full 

field development of the oil and gas throughout the life of the field. The RFD estimates a reasonable and 

foreseeable scenario for development for only the 2001 through 2020 period. BLM’s Wyoming State 

Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) recently conducted a review of the RFD (June 28, 2007) 

and concluded that the number presented in the draft EIS is current, valid, and applicable. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-15 SECTION: 2.3.17 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REPLACE [• Impact level 

approaching that documented in the impact analyses made from reasonably foreseeable actions in an 

RMP or previous Activity Plan analysis](strikeout) • The energy development is approaching the impact 

levels addressed in the Reasonable and Foreseeable Development evaluation EXPLANATION: This is 

not a project or plan amendment. It appears to mean that development impacts are approaching those in 

the RFD. 

Response: BLM feels the referenced text on page 2-15 of the draft EIS is accurate. The RFD is not a cap, 

it is an analysis threshold. If operators can develop more wells than the RFD without exceeding the 

impact thresholds for air emission, surface disturbance, etc., then it can be exceeded. Conversely, the 

impact thresholds are reached before the RFD projection is reached, the fewer wells could be developed 

without an RFD revision and additional impact analysis.

Comment: On several occasions the Interior Board of Land Appeals has confirmed that the RFD 

Scenario is not a limitation on development; including at least two decisions regarding the Pinedale 

Resource Area. In these decisions, the IBLA has made it clear that the RFD Scenario is not a planning 

decision, nor is it a limit on future development. Wyoming Outdoor Council, 164 IBLA 84, 99 (2004) 

(holding with respect to the Pinedale RMP that the RFD Scenario does not establish “a point past which 

future exploration and development is prohibited”); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 159 IBLA 220, 

234 (2003) (holding. that the Book Cliffs RMP did not establish a well, limit); Wyoming Outdoor 

Council, at al IBLA No. 2006-155 at. *26 (June 28, 2006) (holding that the Pinedale RMP does not 

restrict the number of wells that can be drilled within the Pinedale Resource Area); Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance, et al., IBLA No. 2004-316 at *7 (Oct. 6, 2004) (citing Southern Utah Wilderness 

Alliance, 159 IBLA at 234) (holding that the “RFD scenario cannot be considered to establish a limit on 

the number of oil and gas wells that can be drilled in a resource area.”). As indicated by the number of 

decisions cited above, the purpose of the RFD Scenario continues to be a source of confusion and 

litigation. In order to reduce such confusion and litigation, the BLM should include language in the 

A27-308 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Pinedale RMP itself describing the purpose of the RFD Scenario, and the fact that the RFD Scenario is 

not a planning decision or limitation on future development.

Response: Text on page 2-9 of the draft EIS that states: “The RFD predicts future mineral development 

within the planning area” has been changed to “The RFD predicts future mineral development within the 

planning area. The RFD provides a projection of the number of wells and well pads that would be 

developed under each alternative for the purpose of determining surface disturbance levels and impacts to 

surface resources, air quality, socio-economics, etc. The RFD is not a cap or limit on the number of wells 

that can be developed; however, the impact projections based on the RFD do become a development 

threshold. If wells in excess of the RFD cannot be developed without exceeding the impact threshold then 

they can be allowed.” 

Comment: PAGE: 4.48, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Redo RFD analysis to 

conform to IM. EXPLANATION: BLM IM requires BLM to set out RFD in number of wells and acres. 

Neither the RFD set out in Appendix 10 nor the DEIS conforms. Format further frustrates understanding 

of impacts, since it does not show surface disturbance, a key factor for energy development.

Response: Page 4-48, Table 4-2 of the draft EIS provides BLM’s estimate of the total number of well 

locations, by alternative, for federal minerals. Pages 4-114 and 4-115, Table 4-13 provides BLM’s 

estimate of total number of wells (federal, state, and private) across all alternatives. In Appendix 10, 

Table A10-1 provides the total number of well pads by alternative; Table A10-2 provides initial surface 

disturbance for federal lands; Table A10-3 provides long-term disturbance for federal lands; Table A10-8 

provides initial disturbance for all mineral ownerships; and Table A10-9 provides long-term disturbance 

for all mineral ownerships. The RFD conforms to Instruction Memorandum 2004-089, Policy for 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for Oil and Gas. It is a separate document and is 

only referenced within this EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 4.48, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Incorporate summary of RFD 

in FEIS EXPLANATION: FEIS has no discussion of RFD in any meaningful way and as discussed, 

Appendix 10 fails to conform to IM 2004-89 and must be revised entirely. See Comments Appendices.

Response: A description of the RFD has been added to the minerals section (Section 2.3.6 of the draft 

EIS) of the Actions Common to All Alternatives. The RFD conforms to Instruction Memorandum 2004-

089, Policy for Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for Oil and Gas. It is a separate 

document and is only referenced within this EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 4-77, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DO RFD analysis and tables 

EXPLANATION: FEIS does not follow IM 2004-89 guidelines (which are binding on BLM) for RFD. 

The tables fail to show number of wells, and surface disturbance. This is a fatal flaw because it also 

means that the FEIS does not meet EPCA direction that BLM disclose restraints on oil and gas leasing 

and document that these are the least restrictive. IM 2004-234; IM 2006-197.

Response: The RFD conforms to Instruction Memorandum 2004-089, Policy for Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) Scenario for Oil and Gas. It is a separate document and is only referenced within this 

EIS. Page 4-48 of the draft EIS, Table 4-2, provides our estimate of the total number of well locations, by 

alternative, for federal minerals. Pages 4-114 and 4-115, Table 4-13, provides BLM’s estimate of the total 

number of wells (federal, state, and private) across all alternatives. In Appendix 10: Table A10-1 provides 

the total number of well pads by alternative; Table A10-2 provides initial surface disturbance for federal 

lands; Table A10-3 provides long-term disturbance for federal lands; Table A10-8 provides initial 

disturbance for all mineral ownerships; and Table A10-9 provides long-term disturbance for all mineral 

ownerships. 

Pinedale RMP A27-309 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: PAGE: SECTION: RFD RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE entirely to conform to IM 

2004-089. EXPLANATION: RFD appendix does not conform to the guidelines and criteria required. 

Specifically the RFD does not describe the surface disturbance by number of wells and acres nor is it 

possible to readily compare the alternatives.

Response: The RFD conforms to the guidance provided in Instruction Memorandum 2004-089, Policy 

for Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for Oil and Gas. It is a separate document and 

is only referenced within this EIS. In Appendix 10: Table A10-1 provides the total number of well pads, 

by alternative, for all federal land, and wells are listed in parentheses; Table A10-2 provides the 

associated initial surface disturbance for federal lands; and Table A10-3 provides the associated long-term 

disturbance. Table A10-7 provides the total number of well pads, by alternative, for all mineral 

ownerships, and wells are listed in parentheses; Table A10-8 provides the associated initial disturbance; 

and Table A10-9 provides the associated long-term disturbance. 

Comment: PAGE: SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Incorporate revised and conforming RFD 

into Chapter 4 of FEIS EXPLANATION: At best the reader finds himself trying to do the math to 

determine the relative amount of surface disturbance. The fact that the RFD incorporates directional 

drilling does not change the obligation to properly follow the IM direction.

Response: The subject Bureau memorandum is intended to provide guidance to assist in preparing these 

types of fluids determinations. Well pads and associated wells are described in Tables A10-1 and A10-7 

of the draft EIS, while the disturbance associated with these pads and wells is described in Tables A10-2, 

A10-3, A10-8, and A10-9.

Comment: I hope the energy companies will not find the document too restrictive in some of the 

sections. I am also concerned about the data you have used. It is my understanding that the newest 

numbers for the overall acreage, the current field production and well results are much higher than 

expected. Therefore you should probably rework your Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario. It 

is very likely that with the higher numbers a compromise between the energy companies and the 

environmentalists may be easier achievable.

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: I urge the BLM to remove the unnecessary drilling restrictions and stipulations, which you 

have written as alternatives in the Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement. And I 

hope you consider the economic benefits, which would come from extracting these important resources. 

Please redo the reasonable foreseeable development plan using updated numbers before you move 

forward with the RMP.

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: hope the energy companies will not find the document too restrictive in some of the sections. 

I am also concerned about the data you have used. It is my understanding that the newest numbers for the 

overall acreage, the current field production and well results are much higher than expected. Therefore 

you should probably rework your Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario to more accurately 

reflect the resource that is out there. By accurately stating the resource your agency will position 

A27-310 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Wyoming to continue providing our nation with reliable clean burning natural gas to heat our homes and 

power our economy.

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: One is that some are saying the data you used appears to be out-dated. I have heard recently 

that the area of the natural gas field is much larger than initially expected and that the current field 

production and well results are much better than predicted. This means that you need to rework your 

Reasonable Foreseeable Development numbers.

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: For one I do not even know why the RMP has to be so site-specific. I always thought such a 

document needs to be general in nature. And then there is one more problem I have found. The numbers 

are old. I mean the numbers for the acreage, current field production and well results. There is a lot more 

natural gas there than they originally thought. Please fix your plan and make it friendlier to the energy 

companies!

Response: The alternatives and analysis provided in the draft EIS are appropriate for a land use plan-level 

document. The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed projected 

future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion in the final 

EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: How can you expect them to make a profit if the access to one of the largest natural gas fields 

in the country is so limited? Some of these restrictions definitely have to taken out, especially the seasonal 

ones. This would make a seasonal workforce necessary, which in turn would be a big disadvantage for the 

area. You have a lot of wrong numbers in this draft RMP. From what I understand many of the numbers 

for the current field production and well results have been revised.

Response: Access to the Pinedale Anticline field, if that is what you mean, is not restricted by the RMP. 

BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of existing valid oil and gas leases. The RFD 

was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed projected future development 

at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion in the final EIS to incorporate 

changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: An RMP needs to be general in nature and you have made it site-specific. That should be the 

job of an EA or EIS! I also think you need to check the numbers of your Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development section. I am almost certain that they are totally outdated. You need to rework them. I 

understand that the acreage is much larger than initially thought and the field production and well results 

are also.

Response: The alternatives and analysis provided in the draft EIS are appropriate for a land use plan-level 

document. The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed projected 

future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion in the final 

EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Pinedale RMP A27-311 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: A few things however bother me with the plan. For one I am concerned that you must use 

correct data for your Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario! In addition, the restrictions in the 

alternative sections are not warranted. They need to be removed. Otherwise it will be impossible for the 

energy companies to develop the area and still make a profit. Site Specific considerations can be reviewed 

on a project-by-project basis. Our country needs the energy and we need to find a way to supply it. The 

development of the Pinedale Anticline is one way to do so.

Response: The alternatives and analysis provided in the draft EIS are appropriate for a land use plan-level 

document. The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed projected 

future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion in the final 

EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: Another note, are you sure that the numbers used for the Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development Scenario are correct? I was under the impression that the recent data is quite different, in 

fact it is supposed to be much larger. This doesn’t add up with recent studies I have seen. 

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: Overall it is a good plan; however, you need to place equal emphasis on the energy 

development section of the RMP in relation to the other sections contained within. I also believe 

Reasonable Foreseeable Development numbers need to be updated based on current information 

including updates in project-specific EIS/EAs and other available known data. Old information of 

potential resource areas needs to be updated based on new findings and current field production and well 

results. This would affect all acreage and percentages, which would need to be reanalyzed. Deep potential 

needs to be updated based on new findings and current field production and well results. The BLM should 

investigate and analyze the impact to the American public that would result in leaving the valuable oil and 

gas resource undeveloped, especially under Alternative 3.

Response: Appropriate emphasis is placed on energy development in the draft EIS. The RFD was 

reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed projected future development at 

the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion in the final EIS to incorporate 

changes in areas available for leasing. The impacts of Alternative 3 are expressed through the reduction in 

RFD and related reductions in tax and other revenue that would accrue.

Comment: I am writing you today because it seems pretty obvious to me that Bureau of Land 

Management drafted the DEIS using data which is out-dated. We need to consider the current energy 

situation we are in when establishing the scenario for future development. It is so important to have an 

accurate estimate of the existing development numbers and of future development in order to insure that 

energy development proceeds in a manner that is environmentally friendly and responsive to our energy 

needs. When you have the accurate information it will bring about smart economic growth and rational 

environmental stewardship. I believe it is in the best interest to reanalyze the RFD before continuing with 

this Resource Management Plan. 

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: I’d like to see you reconsider the reasonable foreseeable development numbers you’ve 

proposed. To me, they don’t seem realistic.

A27-312 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: 1. Revise your RFD number. It's too low and it's not realistic. 2. Reevaluate your sage grouse 

study. It just doesn't make sense. Have a fresh set of eyes check it out. 

Response: 1. The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing. 2. BLM did not conduct any sagegrouse studies for the purpose of the RMP revision. Sage-grouse studies were conducted by gas 

companies and independent researchers.

Comment: One of the things that could end with an illegal Pinedale Resource Management Plan would 

be the intentional misstatement of inventoried gas supplies in the Pinedale Resource planning area. Since 

the current projections were made much has been learned about the potential in the area and the 

production levels. New and updated information on the reasonable and foreseeable development forecast 

must be used no matter what alternative is ultimately selected. Please make sure this problem of 

understated resource reserves is addresses.

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: In your RMP, i think you’ve done a pretty good job on some things, but a quick glance at 

your RFD leads me to believe it needs some serious attention. Did you work with oil and gas companies 

in developing this? Next, where did you get the data on your sage grouse study? It needs work. Finally, 

please do NOT implement Alternative 3. This plan goes way too far with imposing unnecessary 

development restrictions on the industry -- and it fails to balance the need to develop our nation’s vast oil 

and gas reserves. 

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing. BLM did not conduct any sagegrouse studies for the purpose of the RMP revision. Sage-grouse studies were conducted by gas 

companies and independent researchers. The alternatives and analysis provided in the draft EIS are 

appropriate for a land use plan-level document.

Comment: Also, the numbers you’ve used for resource management areas seem to be outdated. I would 

encourage you to work with the industry to get their most recent data when compiling these guidelines. 

Be realistic about it. Make sure that your RFD is at least somewhat realistic. You can accomplish this by 

talking to people with expertise about the resource. 

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: You need to find ways to reduce impacts to the environment while ensuring reasonable, 

consistent access to oil and gas companies. You can accomplish these tasks by utilizing tools such as year 

round drilling. This approach helps to improve worker safety and it actually winds up having less of a 

long term impact on the wildlife. Those sort of “win, win” situations are the ones you should be looking 

Pinedale RMP A27-313 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

for. The other thing you can do to help stabilize our “bust, boom” economy is develop a realistic, long 

term reasonable foreseeable development scenario. This will encourage long term investment in our area -

- and have a huge socio-economic impact.

Response: The ideas provided are analyzed in the draft EIS. The RFD was reviewed prior to publication 

of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed projected future development at the time of publication. The 

RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for 

leasing.

Comment: The reason the BLM is in this position is because the agency has misstated the reasonable and 

foreseeable development scenarios and underestimate how much gas is in the ground. Recent production 

has revealed new data and the numbers used for the DRMP projections must be revised upward or could 

likely see legal challenges as lots of assumptions are being placed on the RFDS.

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

Comment: I am also concerned because I do not see an analysis on how much resource can be recovered 

under each category of each alternative. It is important to analyze how much resource is recovered under 

each category of each alternative for NSO, VRM, and all set-asides.

Response: The different RFD numbers for each alternative are based on adjustments made for varying 

restrictions placed on oil and gas development and leasing. BLM’s Wyoming State Office Reservoir 

Management Group retains the RFD calculations. 

Comment: Because the anticipated levels of oil and gas development drive many of the more substantive 

impacts with respect to air quality, disturbance, and social and economic conditions, the timeframe for the 

projected/assumed oil and gas development and analysis framework should be clarified. The document 

does not clearly define the timeframe for the development assumptions and the associated assessment. 

Section 1 addresses the ROD for the existing RMP and the considerable changes that have occurred since 

the ROD. However, neither Section 1 nor 2 describe the analytical timeframe associated with the current 

RMP update. Indications of the oil and gas development timeframe, apparently 2001 to 2020, appear in 

Section 4 and Appendix 26. However, even those statements leave unanswered questions such as, 

whether or how the long-term, continuing effects of production extending beyond 2020 are considered? 

Also, is the point of departure for the impact assessment 2000 or 2006? This is an issue with respect to 

how the level of activity and remaining number of wells to be drilled are addressed (see item #2 below).

Response: The draft EIS/RMP purposely does not set a specific “life of plan” limit. It does use an 

analysis base of 2001–2020 for impact determination. Trying to predict impacts beyond 2020 would be 

highly variable and highly speculative. Based on ever changing technologies and public demands on the 

resources addressed in the plan, projecting impacts beyond 2020 would be futile. As depicted in Table 

A10-1 of the draft EIS, the starting point for the RFD is 2001. 

Comment: Item: Appendix 10 – Surface Disturbance Associated with Oil and Gas Activities Comment: 

We support BLM’s approach of considering the affects of long-term surface disturbance rather than 

number of wells as the governing criteria for determining whether analyzed objectives and reasonable 

foreseeable development have been exceeded. However, it is important for BLM to recognize in the RFD 

and RMP that where surface disturbance is less per well than analyzed in the RMP, more wells can be 

drilled in many areas without exceeding identified impacts and that restored acreage should be excluded 

from surface disturbance calculations. 

A27-314 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: BLM acknowledges the actual size and distance varies for wildcat/exploratory wells to infill 

wells in an existing field and also that they vary from field to field, but for the analysis purposes of the 

draft EIS/RMP, the across-the-planning area averages included on page 4-4 of the draft EIS are adequate. 

As you state, the long-term surface disturbance is the limiting criterion for oil and gas development under 

the draft EIS/RMP and larger pads equate to fewer wells, whereas smaller pads could equate to additional 

wells, providing they fall within the limits analyzed for other resources such as air emissions. 

Comment: The draft plan is overwhelmingly focused on minerals. There is no accurate documentation of 

current conditions and impacts on the Anticline and the Jonah field, yet these fields are an undeniable 

component of the planning area for the PRMP. The BLM planning area, as reported by BLM itself, 

includes 922,880 acres of public lands on the surface and almost 1.2 million acres of subsurface. The 

Jonah Field and the Pinedale Anticline are on the order of 230,000 acres or approximately 25% of the 

PRMP planning area. The impacts from these gas fields have a present and future effect on the entirety of 

the planning area and the larger region that includes, but is not limited to, residential areas, ranches, 

wilderness areas, national parks and forests, lakes, valuable recreational lands and more. 

Response: The draft EIS/RMP analysis and data are for the planning area as a whole. Analysis and data 

specific to the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline are found in the field development EISs for those fields and 

are not repeated in the draft EIS/RMP. The RFD does include the projected development in the Jonah and 

Pinedale Anticline fields, and, therefore, the impact analysis does reflect the impacts associate with these 

fields.

Comment: Finally, the BLM’s prediction of future activity appears to be based on the inaccurate 

prediction that oil and gas activity in the area may begin to decline in 2007 when prices were expected to 

begin declining, or at least remain flat. See Mineral Occurrence Report, pg. 4-21. In fact, as evidenced by 

the recent approval of the JIDP, the proposed infill development on the Pinedale Anticline, and the 

potential development for infill drilling activities on the western portion of the resource area, exploration 

and production activity will be buoyed beyond 2007. The Energy Information Administration currently 

projects that Henry Hub prices for natural gas will range from $5.46 to $7.23 for the years 2007 through 

2030. See Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html. The BLM’s 

2006 RFD Scenario Final Report partially contradicts and updates the information from the 2003 Mineral 

Occurrence Report noting that prices will likely remain between $5.00 and $8.00 for the foreseeable 

future. See, RFD Scenario Final Report, pg. 45. There is no indication exploration and production 

activities in the Pinedale Resource Area will not continue, or even increase, over the next several years. 

The BLM’s RFD Scenario must be updated to reflect this reality.

Response: Yes, the definition does focus on an average number of wells per township (well density), and 

does reflect reservoir characteristics of potential producing formations in each area. BLM agrees that it 

does not necessarily equate to increased well productivity in the areas analyzed, although BLM did 

project overall productivity associated with existing development and new projected development (Tables 

14 and 15 of the RFD Scenario Final Report). BLM used this method in the EIS analysis because it was 

needed to analyze the impacts of future development and overall cumulative development of the oil and 

gas resource. BLM believes that the best way to evaluate the impacts of potential future development is to 

determine new and cumulative surface disturbance associated with that development. To do that it is 

critical to determine the locations of existing development and project locations and densities of future 

development activities.

Socioeconomics 

Comment: EnCana has concerns regarding the creation of the Large Block NSO Areas under Alternative 

4, and the significant portions of the planning area made unavailable for future oil and gas leasing under 

Alternatives 3 and 4. As indicated on Maps 4-1 and 4-2 and Appendix 10, the lands within the Pinedale 

Pinedale RMP A27-315 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Resource Area have significant potential for oil and gas development, including coalbed natural gas 

development. Although the BLM suggests existing oil and gas leases in these areas may be developed, 

pgs. 2-82, 2-121 122, it will be virtually impossible, and not economically viable to develop isolated 

leases. Any responsible oil and gas producer who decides to take the risk of exploring a wildcat area must 

do so only after assembling a large enough block of leasehold acreage so that, if the drilling is successful, 

it can obtain an adequate return on the high risk dollars invested. The BLM has, in other contexts, 

recognized this need for control of a reasonable acreage block. See Prima Oil & Gas Co., 148 IBLA 45, 

51 (1999) (BLM policy to suspend leases when “a lessee is unable to explore, develop, and produce 

leases due to the proximity, or commingling of other adjacent Federal lands needed for logical exploration 

and development that are currently not available for leasing”). The BLM must recognize, study, and 

report the economic impact its decision to close significant portions of the planning area to leasing, or to 

make significant portions only available with NSO stipulations, will have upon future exploration and 

development in the area. The BLM’s decision may deprive lessees, the local communities, the State of 

Wyoming, and the federal government of the economic benefits of oil and gas development: 

Appropriately, the BLM indicates that operators would not be required to drill of setting wells in the 

large-block NSO Areas if the costs of completing and producing those wells would exceed the value of 

the resource being drained by adjoining state or private eases. See RMP DEIS, pg. 2-48. The BLM should 

make it clear that this exception: NSO applies to existing leases within areas unavailable for leasing under 

either Alternative 3 or 4. The BLM must accept the loss of minerals, economic activity, and tax revenue 

associated with a decision to make significant areas of the planning area unavailable for lease, or only 

available with unduly restrictive NSO stipulations.

Response: Limiting areas available for oil and gas leasing could limit exploration and revenues for the 

county, state, and federal governments in the future. This eventuality is discussed in the impact analysis in 

Chapter 4. BLM is not required to manage the public lands to generate the greatest possible dollar return. 

The alternatives analyzed attempt to provide balanced resource use on a landscape scale.

Comment: I think the BLM failed to consider what the economic implications to the area would be, if 

this large natural gas field would fail to be developed, because major energy companies do not want to 

invest in something so restricted.

Response: The analysis of economic impacts in Chapter 4 of the draft EIS was based on the RFD 

scenario for oil and gas, which projected the level of development that would occur under each alternative 

given the proposed land use restrictions. 

Comment: Alternative 3 inappropriately limits oil and gas development. The BLM would effectively 

foreclose oil and gas development in the Pinedale Resource Area outside of the PAPA and the Jonah 

field. As the BLM is aware, mineral exploration and production is identified as a principal or major use of 

federal lands under FLPMA. 43 U.S.C. § 1702(1) (2006). Under Alternative 3, 711,920 acres would be 

unavailable for leasing, 307,450 acres would be available only with NSO stipulations, and another 

339,570 acres would be available with unreasonable seasonal or controlled use stipulations. Over 268,030 

acres of land with moderate, high, or very high potential for oil and gas would be made unavailable for 

leasing, and 237,590 acres with moderate, high, or very high potential for development would be 

available only with an NSO stipulation. 

The removal of vast areas of land from future oil and gas development and potential restrictions on 

existing lease Alternative 3 also significantly restricts the amount of domestic energy available to the 

nation. If enacted, Alternative 3 would deprive the nation of 3,322 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas 

and 27,000,000 barrels of oils compared to Alternative 2. 1 BCF of natural gas is the average annual 

amount used by 13,700 Wyoming households. See Energy Information Administration (2002 use rates). 

A27-316 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

The adoption of Alternative 3 would also cause the loss of 2,282 jobs and the loss of 2.3 billion dollars in 

mineral tax revenue. The BLM cannot adopt an alternative that would devastate economic development, 

reduce domestic energy supplies, and devastate the local tax base. 

Even in Intensively Developed Fields such as the PAPA, the BLM’s management direction unnecessarily 

limits the recovery of energy supplies. See RMP DEIS, pg. 2-81, Action b.l . APC believes BLM land in 

the Pinedale Resource Area can be effectively managed for both resources. The BLM’s consideration of 

exceptions to stipulations allowing year-round drilling only when the operators have offered offsite 

mitigation is tantamount to requiring offsite mitigation in order to effectively develop oil and gas 

resources and avoid cyclical oil and gas development. See RMP DEIS, pg. 2-82. The BLM and impacted 

communities have a significant interest on dependent and reliable work forces; the BLM should strive to 

avoid seasonal surges and busts. Further, as noted above, the BLM cannot require offsite mitigation.

Response: BLM analyzed an appropriate range of alternatives in the draft EIS. It is reasonable to analyze 

an alternative that could limit future gas development.

Comment: It would be very helpful if the BLM would investigate and analyze the impact to the 

American public that would result in leaving the valuable oil and gas resource undeveloped before 

proceeding with an implementation of the DRMP.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP does project the total estimated oil and gas volumes to be produced under 

each alternative (i.e., 19,104 BCF of natural gas and 157 million barrels of oil under Alternative 1; 20,052 

BCF of gas and 157 million barrels of oil under Alternative 2; 16,730 BCF and 130 million barrels under 

Alternative 3; and 19,168 BCF and 150 million barrels under Alternative 4). Leaving these volumes of 

gas and oil in the ground would reduce the product available to the American public to the extent 

projected in these estimates. The effect would be potential increased shortages and increased cost to the 

consumer for product derived from other sources. The exact increase in cost is not predictable. 

Comment: The impact alternative 3 would have on our economy, if it actually would be left in the final 

RMP. If the major energy companies decide not to invest in the development of the Pinedale project 

because of all the restrictions and stipulations, the local region would loose valuable tax revenues and 

consumer spending from all the jobs, which would not materialize.

Response: The draft EIS analyzes the impacts anticipated with each alternative, including the anticipated 

socioeconomic impacts associated with Alternative 3. Whether or not companies would discontinue 

operations in the planning area would be purely speculative and therefore was not specifically addressed. 

It is important to remember that regardless of the alternative ultimately selected, approximately 65% of 

the federal lands/federal mineral estate in the planning area is currently leased under the 1988 RMP. The 

leaseholders/operators have valid and existing rights to develop and produce these existing leases. 

Comment: I am very worried that imposing restrictions and stipulations on drilling in the Pinedale 

Anticline will stop companies such as Shell, Ultra and Questar from going ahead with harvesting this rich 

natural resource. I hope you will consider my opinion and decide to remove the restrictions, therefore 

making it profitable for the companies interested in this project to invest in it.

Response: The draft EIS analyzes the impacts anticipated which each alternative, including the 

anticipated socioeconomic impacts associated with Alternative 3. Whether or not companies would 

discontinue operations in the planning area would be purely speculative and therefore was not specifically 

addressed. It is important to remember that regardless of the alternative ultimately selected, 

approximately 65% of the federal lands/federal mineral estate in the planning area is currently leased 

Pinedale RMP A27-317 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

under the 1988 RMP. The leaseholders/operators have valid and existing rights to develop and produce 

these existing leases. 

Comment: In regards to mitigations and restrictions, I believe the BLM must weigh the net loss of 

revenue. We should balance other resource needs but understand all economic impacts. For these reasons, 

I strongly believe Alternative 3 is too restrictive.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP does address the socioeconomic effects of the four alternatives. The 

effects of natural gas development is part of the analysis.

Comment: Over stringent mitigations will result in a net economic loss to the community and country 

that would come from imposing drilling restrictions. I hope the BLM will develop a new alternative to 

meet our energy needs.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to present a reasonable range of alternatives and make 

projections of the impacts associated with each of those alternatives. Accordingly, the document 

addresses varying levels of oil and gas leasing and development and the anticipated socioeconomic 

impacts to and from oil and gas leasing/development. Leasing and development would continue to occur 

in the planning area under each of the alternatives. 

Comment: Most importantly wrong with this RMP is the seasonal restriction portion. By creating a short 

window for activity in an area, BLM will essentially be creating a transient workforce through the 

implementation of this guideline. This type of employment pattern will be detrimental to what would 

have otherwise been an economic stimuli for Wyoming with the employment opportunities energy 

development will create. Secondly, these restrictions will severely reduce the production output needed to 

be profitable for the companies in the area.

Response: BLM is required to manage the federal lands and mineral estates under its jurisdiction for 

multiple use. The RMP builds a framework for subsequent project-level NEPA documents. Such a 

framework includes suggested and required mitigation measures, as well as best management practices. 

As such it is appropriate for the RMP to set the framework for measures, including the use of seasonal 

restrictions, that could reduce impacts. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would designate Intensive Development 

Areas where seasonal restrictions would be relaxed.

Comment: The lack of analysis of the potential benefits of slowing development makes it especially 

interesting to note that later in the RMP DEIS, in Section 4.6.3 “Cumulative Impacts by Resource 

Category,” (page 4-241 to 4-242) the BLM does do some analysis of the potential benefits of speeding up 

development. And it is not surprising, given the one-sided treatment of the oil and gas industry in the 

Draft EIS that the costs of speeding development have been ignored. 

The analyses in the RMP assume that drilling will take place over 20 years. Experience elsewhere in the 

region indicates that it is often the case that development occurs much more rapidly. For example, in the 

Jonah Field, the 20-year projected total was reached within 5 years. More rapid development results in 

greater habitat fragmentation (Sawyer et al. 2005), higher levels of air and water pollution (GauthierWarinner 2000, USGS 1996), greater social disruption in surrounding communities, and fewer agency 

resources for the monitoring and enforcement needed to prevent these negative impacts (U.S. GAO 2005, 

Western Organization of Resource Councils 2005). 

By definition, boom towns are the result of rapid development, and this development has been shown to 

have many negative impacts to the communities inundated by oil and gas drilling (Freudenburg 1992, 

Freudenberg and Gramling 1994, Guilliford 1989, Goldsmith 1992, Humphrey et al. 1993, Limerick et al. 

A27-318 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

2002, Pederson Planning Consultants, 2001, Pinedale Anticline Working Group, 2005, Smith 1986). 

These negative impacts include increased cost to private land owners and residents, increased cost to local 

governments, and overall economic instability and a loss of economic diversity. 

The current oil and gas boom has generated significant costs to communities in the West. For example in 

the Powder River Basin, landowners are spending thousands of dollars on attorneys in order to attempt to 

protect their property, often to no avail, as these areas have seen dramatic declines in property values 

(Pederson Planning Consultants 2001). A recent study in La Plata County, Colorado found that coalbed 

methane wells there resulted in a decline in property values of 22 percent (BBC Research and Consulting 

2001). 

As noted in the comments submitted by the town of Pinedale on the BLM’s Supplemental EIS for oil and 

gas development on the Pinedale Anticline, residents’ quality of life also suffers during accelerated oil 

and gas development. These costs must be accounted for in the analysis. Surveys of residents in Western 

communities indicate that people choose to live in this region because of the scenery, recreation, lifestyle, 

and clean air and water rather than economic factors such as jobs or low taxes (McLeod et al. 1998, Porter 

et al. 2004). These amenities are diminished when oil and gas drilling increases in pace and scale. The 

loss of amenities and the economic impacts created by this loss must be acknowledged and accounted for 

in the analysis for the Pinedale area, and especially the potential increased costs associated with rapid 

drilling 

Response: The final EIS has been updated to include an alternative to significantly slow the pace of 

development. The alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis because BLM does 

not have sufficient authority to apply this concept. The areas unavailable for leasing have been updated in 

the final EIS. These changes will impact the pace of oil and gas development. However, this RMP will 

not affect the pace of development in existing developed fields.

Comment: Accelerated oil and gas development has left many counties and communities unable to pay 

for or finance the increase in public service costs or the cleanup cost after the bust. We have every reason 

to believe that similar costs and burdens will be placed on the communities in the Pinedale area, 

especially if the drilling takes place rapidly. The timeframe for leasing or development of these public 

lands should take into account the potential impact that rapid development will have on the local 

community and should be implemented in such a way as to minimize these impacts, not according to the 

demands of the oil and gas industry. Recommendations 

1. The BLM must expand its RMP analysis so that phased development is fully described and considered 

as a way to protect the other multiple uses of the public lands in the Pinedale area. Specifically, BLM 

must describe and consider how approaches like limiting new leasing and firm (i.e. non waivable) surface 

density requirements can be used to slow the overall pace of new development over the RMP planning 

period. 

a. In order to make a complete analysis of the impacts of phased development, the agency must make an 

assessment of the benefits of phased development, which includes the potential community benefits and 

the potential benefits of the added environmental protection that will result from slowing oil and gas 

development under a phased development or leasing plan. 

2. When estimating the potential benefits of rapid oil and gas development in the Pinedale area, the BLM 

must show these benefits as net rather than gross (that is these analyses should reflect the costs as well). 

a. The increased public service and infrastructure costs, the increased loss of wildlife habitat, and the 

other environmental costs associated with more rapid oil and gas development have already been well 

Pinedale RMP A27-319 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

documented in the Pinedale area (see the comments submitted by the town of Pinedale for the Pinedale 

Anticline Project Areas SEIS). These cost must be fully accounted for in the Final EIS. See the attached 

document “The Economic and Social Impacts of Oil and Gas Development” for further information on 

the costs of oil and gas development. 

Response: The final EIS has been updated to include an alternative to significantly slow the pace of 

development. The alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis because BLM does 

not have sufficient authority to apply this concept. The areas unavailable for leasing have been updated in 

the final EIS. These changes will impact the pace of oil and gas development. However, this RMP will 

not affect the pace of development in existing developed fields.

Comment: If all the energy companies want to develop the Pinedale Anticline and follow all the 

restrictions you are putting on them in the alternative section, they will probably not make a profit. It is 

unlikely they will take the project on if they will not profit from it. We will not have a good energy 

supply for our country and economic development for the region. Just think what it would mean for the 

area if all the jobs necessary to develop such a project would come here! The economic impact would be 

incredible. I urge you to look at the RMP again. Please take out the restrictive alternative sections and 

allow the energy companies to do their job.

Response: The alternatives and analysis provided in the draft EIS are appropriate for a land use plan-level 

document.

Comment: Where is the acknowledgment that Sublette County has lost the most agricultural lands of any 

county in the State? There were approximately 19,000 acres developed for residential uses in the county 

from 1990-2004? Of these 99.5 percent occurred in the unincorporated parts of the county, and most on 

what the American Farmland Trust identifies as prime ranchland, most of which is split estate. The 

implication of that loss is a major land use issue in the Pinedale planning area. Together, the non-farm 

trend plus the South Rim Unit and the 230,000 acres of the Anticline and Jonah Field are pushing 30% 

OF WHAT???, The housing trend is forecast to continue driven by relocations and natural gas 

development’s housing demand (unlike the previous growth that was driven by second home demand). 

There are many implications for what dispersed housing outside Pinedale proper on water well/septic 

systems will mean in conjunction with a draft RMP that prefers mineral sprawl to any other future for 

Sublette County. The competing land uses for housing and recreation, and sprawling gas development in 

this Pinedale RMP document are on a collision course. 

Response: It is not within the authority of BLM to prohibit private lands being sold for subdivision 

development. However, impacts of population increase and expanding housing development are 

addressed in the socioeconomic impacts analysis in Chapter 4.

Comment: The RMP does not seem to address the potential impacts of Split Estate leasing on areas 

developed since the 1993 RMP, i.e., Hoback Ranches, Bridger Estates, Boulder etc. Protection of 

recreational, wildlife and cultural areas is addressed which is good, but the impact on residential areas is 

not addressed.

Response: Analysis of impacts of development on rural subdivisions has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: Unincorporated municipalities or zoned rural subdivisions. Particularly since mineral 

potential is low in most of these areas, and 70 % of the RMP area is already leased, there should be no 

leasing in unincorporated municipalities or zoned rural subdivisions. Doing so would cause serious health 

and welfare problems for our community, already struggling to stabilize from current boom impacts.

A27-320 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: This would only provide “selective protection” for those residential properties with underlying 

federal minerals that are not currently leased and could provide “protection” for some residential 

properties with leased federal minerals should those leases expire without the lease being developed. It 

would not provide any protection for residential properties with underlying private mineral estates, nor 

would it provide protection for residential properties developed in the future on lands within underlying 

federal minerals. It is also contrary to the intent of Congress when it established the various laws that 

allowed for the transfer/patent of federal lands to private entities, but retained the mineral estates in 

federal ownership to be developed for overall benefit of the American public at large. 

Comment: I understand that environmental groups, funded by out-of-state foundations are trying to lock 

off huge areas in the Pinedale management area. This is bad for Wyoming, Bad for Pinedale, and bad for 

America. 

1. It is bad for Pinedale in that there will be a huge loss in the local taxes, spending and development that 

will occur with an industry slowdown. 

2. It will be bad for Wyoming because of the lost tax revenue to the state and schools systems. 

3. It will be bad for American because is will add to the control that despots already have over the free 

world with the gas and oil reserves they currently control. 

PLEASE make sure that all these issues are addresses in the final RMP. If the BLM is going to lock away 

valuable, clean burning natural gas then the agency sure better do a good job at explaining why.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of existing valid oil and gas leases 

and no “locking away” of proven resources is contemplated.

Comment: Please consider what impact a development of this large natural gas field could have on the 

local economy and Wyoming itself, not to speak of the nation altogether. Remove or at least modify the 

stipulations and restriction from your document and let the energy companies work out the problem 

directly with the environmentalist. 

Response: The alternatives and analysis provided in the draft EIS are appropriate for a land use plan-level 

document. 

Comment: I am very much aware of the impact that oil and gas drilling has made on the economy, and I 

do realize that they have cleaned up their act in recent years, somewhat. But no, they cannot guarantee 

that they can go in pristine areas with their large equipment and come out again without having done 

damage. 

Response: It is true that development for oil and gas will always have impacts. These impacts are 

analyzed in Chapter 4.

Comment: The draft plan does not acknowledge the dramatic and well documented non-energy related 

shocks to the whole Yellowstone region. Sublette County is typical of the story. Analyses shows how 

unprepared the economies of a 25 county region, including and most intensively Sublette County, are to 

meet the challenges of the future. (See the Yellowstone Business Partnership 2007 publications, which are 

incorporated here by reference). These challenges come in the form of meeting, for example, the needs of 

a rapidly aging population at a time when the economies of these counties share an over- reliance on 

volatile construction wages. An aging population requires a retail and service economy, including medical 

services and transportation. At-home care and independent living rather than retirement home care is the 

Pinedale RMP A27-321 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

trend driven by the high cost of health care services and increasing numbers of seniors. Reliance on 

excessive mineral development and building construction wages in the local economy renders the county 

ill-prepared for the future and the draft RMP needs to take these and other socio-economic impacts 

associated with the alternatives presented into account—as required by NEPA. The answer to these 

problems is not entirely money. The PRMP-DEIS, essentially a land use plan, addresses none of these 

critical 21st Century issues even though there is data readily available in this class of information. 

Response: The socioeconomic impact analysis has been expanded and updated in the Final EIS to more 

fully address these and other social and economic issues.

Categorical Exclusions (CX) 

Comment: Item: Page 1-15, Section 1.5.2, Bureau of Land Management Energy and Non-Energy 

Mineral Policy “The Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages energy efficiency and conservation; promotes 

alternative and renewable energy sources; reduces dependence on foreign sources of energy; increases 

domestic production; modernizes the electrical grid; and encourages the expansion of nuclear energy.” 

Comment: Discussion of the categorical exclusions contained in the Energy Policy Act and how those 

provisions can be applied to subsequent oil and gas drilling and development is missing from the analysis 

and discussion in the RMP. In reviewing an Application for Permit to Drill (APD), Surface Use Plan of 

Operations, or pipeline application involving a proposed activity that fits into one of the five categories, 

an appropriate CX can be applied. Comment: BLM is continuing to process more applications each year. 

Continuing approvals at these high levels, while performing necessary monitoring and evaluating the 

effectiveness of mitigation measures, requires BLM to make efficient use of the CX provisions and to 

change how it processes APD’s in the intensively developed areas vs. minimally developed and restricted 

areas. Some possibilities are: 

• Allowing use of Categorical Exclusions for sundry notices and Applications for Permits to Drill 

on multiple-well pads. 

• Establishing monitoring as a priority to track land use plan and project implementation. A system 

for tracking and coordinating monitoring within and among agencies needs to be developed, 

along with improvements in coordination among agencies for data exchange and research. 

• Electronic filing, processing, and approval of APDs and Sundry Notices should be encouraged. 

This reduces the amount of data entry done by BLM staff and allows more effort to be devoted to 

processing

Response: The use of the Categorical Exclusions under The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is provided by 

statute under the Act and therefore does not require an RMP decision to implement. The Pinedale Field 

Office routinely processes authorizations under one of the five statutory Categorical Exclusions where 

appropriate. Likewise, establishing monitoring and tracking measures is already under BLM’s authority 

and in many cases has already been instituted. A RMP decision is not needed to establish monitoring or 

tracking systems.

Intensively Developed Fields, Minimally Developed Areas, and Traditional 

Leasing Areas 

Comment: Page 2-143 “Approximately 175,750 acres in Intensively Developed Fields would be 

available for intensive fluid mineral leasing, exploration, development, and production; approximately 

672,470 acres designated as Minimally Developed Areas would be available for restricted fluid mineral 

leasing, exploration, development, and production; about 205,100 acres would be designated as Large 

Block NSO Areas; and 156,900 acres would be designated as Unavailable Areas for leasing, exploration, 

development, and production” “The planning area would be divided into three distinct, noncontiguous, 

A27-322 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

wildlife management zones for the purpose of oil and gas activities.” Comment: The boundaries of the 

Intensively Developed Fields under Alternative 4 are inadequate. It is crucial for BLM to include more 

developed lands in the western portion of the resource area in this category. It is confusing that the lands 

adjacent to and within the Big Piney/La Barge CAP are not designated as an Intensively Developed field. 

We recommend that the lands within Townships 28 - 30 North, Ranges 112 – 113 West be included 

within the Intensively Developed field category. This omission is of concern because the entire western 

portion of the Pinedale Field Office area has very high potential for oil and gas development, and the 

above-referenced lands have been producing oil and gas for 100 years. 

BLM’s analysis in the Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report for the Pinedale RMP 

(2003) at Figure 3-7 more accurately defines the boundaries of the Big Piney/La Barge area and the 

significant oil and gas development that has taken place in the area. The Mineral Occurrence report 

indicates that “moderate development potential is anticipated in a large area of the La Barge Platform, at 

approximately T25-29N, R112-113W, and in the central and north parts of the RMPPA [Resource 

Management Plan Planning Area]. The north part of this moderate development potential extends onto 

USFS lands.” Comment: While the above discussion clarifies that the management zones are intended to 

protect wildlife from oil and gas and specific mitigation guidelines and operating standards for each 

resource are presented in Appendix 3 and apply to each of the management areas; overall, it is unclear 

how oil and gas development on existing leases will differ in these management areas. It is also unclear 

how operations on future leases will differ between the intensively and minimally developed areas. 

Response: The Intensively Developed Fields classification is intended to address areas with intense 

surface impacts due to oil and gas developments. The areas are drawn to include all areas affected by 

these impacts. Provisions for expanding the Intensively Developed Fields are intended to recognize future 

expansion of surface-impacting activities in the fields. The Intensively Developed Fields provide, for 

example, for wildlife seasonal and other restrictions to be relaxed in areas of intensive or dense 

development. It would not be appropriate to relax wildlife seasonal stipulations in areas where gas 

development exists but with lower impact levels where traditional wildlife seasonal habitats are still 

widely used.

Comment: The BLM should increase the size of the Intensively Developed Field designation in the 

vicinity of Jonah Field given the potential for development in that area. Additionally, the BLM should 

revise other aspects of its preferred alternative that are too restrictive.

Response: The Intensively Developed Fields are intended to deal with current development, not potential 

for development. Methods for increasing the size of the fields as appropriate are provided.

Comment: Alternative 3 needs to be modified to close potential loopholes (one example: allowing areas 

that would be protected under the plan to be converted to unprotected areas if well-density exceeded a 

certain threshold -- this is certainly managing for industry!); nonetheless, Alternative 3 would go far 

toward protecting air and wildlife in the Upper Green. 

Response: The projected boundaries of proposed “Intensively Developed Field” areas is based on our 

current level of knowledge about where high intensity development, in terms of numbers of wells and 

surface spacing, is occurring or is anticipated to occur. The boundaries are designed to allow intense 

development within the area, but allow for the maximum level of surface resource protection outside the 

area. As new delineation wells are developed to define and/or refine the productive limits of the existing 

fields or as explorative wells are developed in areas outside the existing field, it may become necessary to 

expand the “Intensively Developed” Areas. The conversion criterion provides the mechanism to 

accomplish this and do so in a methodical and systematic manner. The language for conversion has been 

modified in the final EIS.

Pinedale RMP A27-323 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: With these area designations in all alternatives, there is a caveat that the designation could 

change to “intensively developed” when bottom-hole spacing exceeds one well for each 160 acres. The 

DEIS needs to specify the area from which this well density is calculated. Is it a lease area or the entire 

area specified on maps 2-7,8 and 9?

Response: The discussion of how areas could be converted to Intensively Developed Fields has been 

clarified in the final EIS.

Comment: Narrative on page 2-54 indicates that conversion of an area designation to “intensively 

developed” would require development of either an EA, SEIS or an EIS. The EA process would be 

inadequate in this case because when considered separately, with no cumulative impact assessment, a 

“Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) would likely result. But, if a series of lease areas were 

considered in total such as in the EIS process, combined impacts and cumulative effects would be more 

realistically evaluated. The RMP should provide that no area classification changes will be made without 

a complete SEIS or EIS. To do otherwise abrogates the BLM’s responsibility under NEPA and violates 

public trust.

Response: Determination of the level of NEPA analysis required to convert a specific area to “intensively 

developed” would depend on the area proposed and the resources affected. BLM would complete the 

necessary analysis to comply with NEPA. It would be inappropriate to specify the type of NEPA 

compliance required at this time, because it is not possible to evaluate the impacts until a proposal is 

made.

Comment: The BLM must also provide for sufficient flexibility within the Intensively Developed Field. 

Based on APC’s review of map 2-9, it appears the BLM has only designated the so-called core of the 

PAPA as an Intensively Developed Field. APC is currently testing wells and planning additional 

development designed to demonstrate the productive capability of lands outside the core area. Operations 

on APC’s leasehold on the west side of Pinedale Field and within the Two Buttes Unit may be adversely 

impacted if all the lands within the unit and on the west side of the field are not included within the 

Intensively Developed Field boundary.

Response: The draft EIS provides for the Intensively Developed Fields to be expanded as appropriate 

based on future development or discoveries.

Comment: The BLM should modify the boundaries of the Intensively Developed Fields under 

Alternative 4 to include areas outside of the proposed core area discussed in the PAPA SDEIS. The BLM 

should also redefine the boundaries of the Intensively Developed Fields and based on the most recent and 

current data APC is currently testing and planning wells outside the core area, if productive, the BLM 

must increase the size of the core area. The BLM must allow sufficient flexibility for the core area of the 

PAPA to increase in size as additional wells are drilled. In many ways, operations on the edges of the 

PAPA core area are still exploratory in nature. Finally, the BLM should review Map 2-9 to ensure that the 

Expanded Year-Round drilling area proposed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and some of 

the other operators in the PAPA is properly mapped as the PAPA Intensively Developed Field.

Response: The draft EIS provides for the Intensively Developed Fields to be expanded as appropriate 

based on future development or discoveries.

Comment: As with the NSO and attendant exception I allowance list, the Alternative 4 Oil & Gas 

Management Areas map (DEIS Map 2-9) is deceiving to the average reader. Vast portions of the map are 

shaded in dark gray, labeled “Minimally Developed Area”, leading the reviewer to believe that under this 

Alternative, only “minimal” oil & gas development would be permitted. But, the Preferred Alternative 

A27-324 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

description specifies that °Lands in this area could convert to “Intensively Developed Fields” when 

bottom-hole well density exceeds 1 well per 160 acres. Conversion cowl require preparation of a field 

development EA, EIS, or supplemental EIS” (DEIS p. 2-121). Permitting conversion to environmentally 

less protective management status upon industry demand is poor policy. This loophole should be closed: 

these areas should be labeled Open to Development. and thresholds for NEPA analysis should be defined 

in the RMP.

Response: The “Minimally Developed Area” label has been changed to “Traditional leasing Areas” to 

more accurately describe the leasing conditions and potential development of the area. The projected 

boundaries of proposed “Intensively Developed Field” areas is based on our current level of knowledge 

where high intensity development, in terms of numbers of wells and surface spacing, is occurring or is 

anticipated to occur. The boundaries are designed to allow intense development within the area, but allow 

for the maximum level of surface resource protection outside the area. As new delineation wells are 

developed to define and/or refine the productive limits of the existing fields or as explorative wells are 

developed in areas outside the existing field is may become necessary to expand the “Intensively 

Developed” areas. The conversion criterion provides the mechanism to accomplish in a methodical and 

systematic manner. The language for conversion has been modified in the FEIS. 

Comment: While we prefer the management plan laid out in Alternative Three, we believe it needs 

improvements to truly reflect your multiple use mandate and to provide the necessary protection for the 

significant cultural resources under your control. Therefore, we would urge you to adopt the following 

additional safeguards to Alternative Three: • Close the loopholes that could allow minimally developed 

areas to become intensively developed and that could allow surface drilling on areas originally designated 

for no surface occupancy; and,

Response: The projected boundaries of proposed “Intensively Developed Field” areas is based on our 

current level of knowledge where high intensity development, in terms of numbers of wells and surface 

spacing, is occurring or is anticipated to occur. The boundaries are designed to allow intense development 

within the area, but allow for the maximum level of surface resource protection outside the area. As new 

delineation wells are developed to define and/or refine the productive limits of the existing fields or as 

explorative wells are developed in areas outside the existing field, it may become necessary to expand the 

“Intensively Developed” areas. The conversion criterion provides the mechanism to accomplish this and 

do so in a methodical and systematic manner. The language for conversion has been modified in the final 

EIS.

Comment: Alternative 3 needs to be modified to close potential loopholes (one example: allowing areas 

that would be protected under the plan to be converted to unprotected areas of well-density exceeded a 

certain threshold

Response: The projected boundaries of proposed “Intensively Developed Field” areas are based on our 

current level of knowledge where high intensity development, in terms of numbers of wells and surface 

spacing, is occurring or is anticipated to occur. The boundaries are designed to allow intense development 

within the area, but allow for the maximum level of surface resource protection outside the area. As new 

delineation wells are developed to define and/or refine the productive limits of the existing fields or as 

explorative wells are developed in areas outside the existing field, it may become necessary to expand the 

“Intensively Developed” areas. The conversion criterion provides the mechanism to accomplish this and 

do so in a methodical and systematic manner. The language for conversion has been modified in the final 

EIS.

Comment: 1. Page 2-47: Under Alternatives 2, 3 & 4, it appears that three types of oil and gas 

management areas would be established. These management areas are not fixed areas (spatially) and the 

Pinedale RMP A27-325 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Minimally Developed and No Surface Occupancy Areas could be reclassified as Intensively Developed 

Areas. What criteria would be used to reclassify areas and what assurances are there that the entire 

planning area would not become an Intensively Developed area? With much of the planning area already 

leased we are concerned that the protections previously provided by the other area MDP and NSO 

classifications would be lost and big game populations and habitats adversely affected. 

Response: The language allowing conversion from minimally developed to intensively developed is 

designed to allow for expansion of existing fields, such as the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, Big Piney-La 

Barge, until the boundaries of productive areas for these areas are established through delineation wells. 

Prior to expanding the Intensively Developed Area boundaries, additional NEPA analysis would be 

required. The language for conversion has been modified in the final EIS. Please note that the term 

“Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS.

Comment: A supportable alternative would firmly, without loopholes driven solely by well density, 

protect the Wind River Front areas now undeveloped, Trapper’s Point, the Warren Bridge sections (a 

migration area second only in importance to Trapper’s Point), the Hoback Rim and adjacent habitats from 

Lookout Mountain to Pass Peak, the entire Bench Corral/Cottonwood/Ryegrass sage complex, and 

sensitive habitats and landscapes outside the current intensively developed areas. 

Response: The language allowing conversion from minimally developed to intensively developed is 

designed to allow for expansion of existing fields, such as the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, Big Piney-La 

Barge, until the boundaries of productive areas for these areas are established through delineation wells. 

Prior to expanding the intensively developed area boundaries, additional NEPA analysis would be 

required. The language for conversion has been modified in the final EIS. Please note that the term 

“Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS. 

The area between Lookout Mountain and Pass Peak is on National Forest land and is beyond the 

jurisdiction of this plan. Under Alternative 3, the remaining referenced areas would be unavailable for 

leasing. Alternative 4 would also designate the Wind River Front south of Pinedale, Trapper’s Point, and 

the Warren Bridge SRMA (which includes the Warren Bridge migration bottleneck) unavailable for 

leasing. The Wind River Front and Upper Green/Upper New Fork would be unavailable for surface 

occupancy (excluding existing leases). Management of the Upper Green/Upper New Fork, Ryegrass, and 

Bench Corral has been reevaluated in the final EIS.

Comment: The following are things that I would like to see in the RMP: 

• Withdraw important wildlife and scenic areas from future leasing (the Wind River Front, 

Trapper’s Point area, Ryegrass/Cottonwood area, Fontenelle elk winter range, and all areas north 

of Daniel, all areas in the leasing moratorium area, and all wildlife migration corridors, winter 

ranges and parturition areas) 

• Allow leases to expire in the above areas 

• Cluster new infrastructure, use directional drilling, and use the cleanest and environmentallyfriendly technology available 

• Remove loopholes that would allow areas designated for minimal development to become 

intensely developed. Do not allow any leasing in NSO areas.

Response: Permanently setting areas aside from leasing or development is beyond the authority of this 

RMP. Such “permanent” set asides/withdrawals require congressional approval. It is not possible to 

cluster development until exploration has confirmed the characteristics and extent of the underground 

A27-326 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

resource. It does not take BLM action to allow leases to expire. If enough time passes, they expire. We 

cannot mandate that they expire faster. Unless the leaseholder drills a producing well, they will expire. 

The projected boundaries of proposed “Intensively Developed Field” areas is based on our current level 

of knowledge about where high intensity development, in terms of numbers of wells and surface spacing, 

is occurring or is anticipated to occur. The boundaries are designed to allow intense development within 

the area, but allow for the maximum level of surface resource protection outside the area. As new 

delineation wells are developed to define and/or refine the productive limits of the existing fields or as 

explorative wells are developed in areas outside the existing field, it may become necessary to expand the 

“Intensively Developed” areas. The conversion criterion provides the mechanism to accomplish this and 

do so in a methodical and systematic manner. The language for conversion has been modified in the final 

EIS.

Comment: First, Yates is concerned about the BLM’s implementation of four development areas: 

Intensively Developed Oil and Gas Fields, Minimally Developed Areas, Large Block NSO Areas and 

Unavailable Areas. This is a new management strategy for the BLM and it appears to be based on politics 

rather than sound scientific data. Yates is not necessarily opposed to the creation of management areas, 

but the agency should include a Moderate Development Area and the areas should be supported by 

scientific data. Additionally, the Large Block NSO and Unavailable Areas should be considered on a 

case-by-case basis because setting aside large areas for no surface occupancy and no development will 

restrict the development of new and improved extraction technology and thus prevent the discovery of 

much needed oil and gas resources.

Response: The “Minimally Developed Area” designation is intended to provide for oil and gas 

development opportunities in areas outside the intensively developed fields such as Jonah, Pinedale 

Anticline, Castle Creek Unit, and Big Piney-La Barge and in essence serves as a moderate development 

area between the intense development areas and areas recommended that they not be available for leasing 

or not be available for surface disturbance. Scientific wildlife studies show that certain wildlife 

occurrences have declined in the Jonah Field and on the Pinedale Anticline and that certain oil and gas 

operations have displaced winter wildlife in the Big Piney-La Barge area. Big game and sage-grouse lek 

monitoring shows that big game wintering populations and lek attendance has experienced some increase 

in certain areas outside of these fields. The Large Block NSO and unavailable area designations are 

intended to provide enhanced wildlife protection in such areas. Please note that the term “Minimally 

Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS.

Comment: All areas of scenic and recreational value including the entire area east of highway 191 should 

be off limits to oil and gas leasing. The greater Trapper’s Point area, the Ryegrass/ Cottonwood area, the 

Fontenelle elk winter range, and the upper Green area north of Warren Bridge all should be off limits to 

leasing. Also, any federal minerals that underlie private land should at least be designated with No 

Surface Occupancy stipulations. 

Response: Under Alternative 3, the referenced areas would be unavailable for leasing. Alternative 3 also 

designates most private lands with underlying federal minerals as unavailable for oil and gas leasing or 

unavailable to surface occupancy. These designations cannot affect the right to develop and produce any 

existing leases in these areas. The language allowing conversion from minimally developed to intensively 

developed is designed to allow for expansion of existing fields, such as the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, Big 

Piney-La Barge, until the boundaries of productive areas for these areas are established through 

delineation wells. Prior to expanding the intensively developed area boundaries, additional NEPA 

analysis would be required. The areas available for oil and gas leasing, and subject to NSO restrictions, 

have been revised in the final EIS. Please note that the term “Minimally Developed Areas” has been 

changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS.

Pinedale RMP A27-327 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: Page Number & Issue:2-120: “lternative 4,Management Objectives and Actions Objective 1 

(Intensively Developed Fields) “Make federal lands and minerals within existing oil and gas fields 

(175,750 acres) available for intensive oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and production 

(Map 2-9). Actions c. Exceptions would be considered to allow year-round drilling and development 

operations on new and existing leases in the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, Big Piney La Barge, Deer Hills, 

and Castle Creek oil and gas fields that are currently encumbered by seasonal restrictions. Such 

exceptions would be subject to additional environmental analysis and the leaseholder/operator 

implementing offsetting mitigation such as, but not limited to: habitat enhancement; development of a 

liquids (condensate and produced water) gathering system to reduce truck traffic; remote telemetry; 

drilling of multiple wells from new and existing pads; directional drilling; noise reduction for drilling and 

completion operations; flareless completion; tier 4 or better emission equipment; bussing of crews; 

concentration of development; closed drilling systems; use of transportation plan that reduces road 

density; compensation mitigation; and monitoring of wildlife populations. 1. This exception would not be 

applied to seasonal (timing limitation) protection measures for T&E and migratory bird species unless 

analysis demonstrates that these species would not be affected or that anticipated impacts would be 

mitigated in accordance with USFWS requirements. d. BMPs would be applied to mitigate impacts on 

sensitive habitats and other resources (Appendix 5) to the extent possible and practicable. e. Accelerated 

reclamation would be implemented to reestablish habitats. f. On-lease water disposal pits would not be 

allowed.” Recommendations: This is too restrictive for project specific application. Technologies and 

processes should be evaluated for application on a site-specific basis rather than a blanket application.

Response: Under all four alternatives, the RMP provides for energy development for the life of the plan 

(i.e., at least through 2020). It also builds a framework for subsequent project-level NEPA documents. 

Such a framework includes suggested and required mitigation measures, as well as best management 

practices. As such, it is appropriate for the RMP to set the framework for measures that could reduce 

impacts.

Comment: The range of alternatives in the DEIS is arbitrarily limited and unduly constrains BLM’s 

management options. For example, Alternative 1 carries forward the current management actions; 

Alternative 2 attempts to show the effects of oil and gas operations with few additional restrictions; 

Alternative 3 focuses on preservation, the most restrictive management, while Alternative 4, the preferred 

alternative, represents an attempt to reconcile potential conflicts. Clearly, only Alternative 4 is viable as a 

preferred alternative, however, it provides BLM constrained, and, therefore, narrow management options. 

Moreover, in order to demonstrate an adequate range of alternatives, Alternative 4 relies upon 

management tools that are unsuitable to facilitate reasonable multiple use activities, such as grazing, oil 

and gas exploration and development and motorized recreation. 

Yates urges that BLM include in the Final EIS a revised preferred alternative that affords BLM with 

greater flexibility to more reasonably address the needs of all uses on public lands. The new preferred 

alternative would utilize a broader variety of management options available to manage oil and gas and 

other activities without the excessive limitations required in Alternative 4 and without the lack of 

management options identified in Alternative 2. For example, Yates recommends that BLM include a 

management area that would provide for moderate development areas in addition to intensive and 

minimal development areas. This would provide a better balance than the “all or nothing” approach 

adopted by BLM in the DEIS. Additionally, a revised preferred alternative could reduce the use of highly 

restrictive stipulations, including seasonal and no surface occupancy to areas where they are actually 

justified. Yates recommends that this new preferred alternative be crafted as a blend of Alternatives 2 and 

4. As such, the revised alternative would not require a supplemental EIS because it would draw upon the 

elements of the alternatives already analyzed in the DEIS. 

A27-328 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: The RMP does provide a reasonable range of alternatives and does meet BLM multiple-use 

management requirements. Please be reminded that the multiple-use requirements of FLPMA do not 

require BLM to manage each and every acre under its jurisdiction for multiple use, but do require 

multiple-use management on a logical unit or landscape level. The “Minimally Developed Area” 

designation is intended to provide for oil and gas development opportunities in areas outside the 

intensively developed fields such as Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, Castle Creek Unit, and Big Piney-La 

Barge and in essence serves as a moderate development area between the intense development areas and 

areas recommended that they not be available for leasing or not be available for surface disturbance. 

Please note that the term “Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” 

in the final EIS.

Comment: The Draft RMP distinguishes between “Intensively Developed Oil and Gas Fields,” where 

emphasis is on development of oil and gas, and “Minimally Developed Areas,” where all uses will be 

accommodated and new leases will include terms and stipulations to limit impacts on the environment 

and wildlife habitats. (page 2-47). However, the Draft RMP also provides for Minimally Developed Areas 

to be converted to Intensively Developed Fields – automatically if exploration reaches a down-hole well 

density of one well every 160 acres or in other “instances” based on some undefined conditions (emphasis 

added). Id. While portions of the Draft RMP discuss environmental documentation that “would be 

prepared to analyze impacts and to determine operating methods, mitigation, and BMPs” that would apply 

to development areas (page 2-48), the more detailed discussion of the alternatives only states that 

conversion of these areas “could” require preparation of environmental analysis. (pages 2-83 and 2-122). 

The conversion of an area to become an intensively developed field will require a environmental analysis. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., dictates that the BLM take a 

“hard look” at the environmental consequences of a proposed action and the requisite environmental 

analysis “must be appropriate to the action in question.” Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1151 (9th Cir. 

2000); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 348 (1989). The analysis conducted 

in the Draft RMP for the alternatives does not include an assessment of the direct, indirect and cumulative 

impacts of the intensive development of areas currently identified for minimal development in the context 

of the other aspects of the alternative. Accordingly, the RMP must require a thorough NEPA analysis if 

an area is to be converted, including identifying BMPs and other mitigation measures.

Response: At the RMP stage it is not possible to know whether or where Minimally Developed Areas 

may actually be developed to the level to trigger consideration for conversion. Therefore, it is not possible 

at the RMP stage to accurately determine what the level of expansion may be or what the site-specific 

impacts of the expansion/conversion would be. Please note that the term “Minimally Developed Areas” 

has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS.

Comment: Also, the standards set for conversion invalidate the NEPA analysis of the alternatives in the 

Draft RMP. Based on the geologic structure of the gas reservoirs, as discussed above, it is likely that any 

exploration with promising results will ultimately lead to at least 160-acre bottom-hole density. 

Therefore, by using this standard, BLM is essentially committing to converting these areas, if any 

profitable gas is found in these areas. In addition, the potential to convert areas based on some other 

undefined standard further undermines the meaning of this designation. NEPA requires federal agencies 

to consider and disclose to the public all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of its actions. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 4332(2); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9. The Draft RMP does not discuss or disclose the true impacts of the 

alternatives that include the likelihood of conversion based on 160-acre bottom-hole density. The Draft 

RMP also does not (and cannot) discuss the true impacts of the alternatives that include conversion based 

on broad and undefined standards for conversion. Failure to disclose and discuss impacts violates NEPA. 

See, e.g., Johnston v. Davis, 698 F.2d 1088, 1095 (10th Cir. 1983) (revision of an EIS may be necessary 

to provide “a reasonable, good faith, and objective presentation of the subjects required by NEPA.”); 

Pinedale RMP A27-329 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

National Audubon Society v. Department of Navy, 422 F.3d 174, 185-87 (4th Cir. 2005) (“The hallmarks 

of a ‘hard look’ are thorough investigation into environmental impacts and forthright acknowledgment of 

potential environmental harms”). The RMP envisions the use of directional drilling to reduce surface 

impacts. Therefore, the standard should be based on maximizing the use of directional drilling and allow 

conversion only where, even with directional drilling and following additional NEPA analysis for a site 

specific field plan, surface spacing of greater than 160 acres is shown to be needed to effectively develop 

the resource. 

Recommendation: As a preliminary matter, both new and existing leases in the Minimally Developed 

Areas should include Conditions of Approval to minimize the impacts of exploration and development. 

The Draft RMP should clearly state that if conversion occurs for an entire field, then an EIS will be 

prepared and BMPs and other mitigation measures identified and applied. The RMP’s current standards 

for conversion (i.e. automatically converted at 160 downhole spacing and converted for “other 

instances”), as well as the RMP’s analysis of the environmental impacts of the alternatives, do not comply 

with NEPA. Finally, the RMP designated Minimally Developed Areas to provide multiple use 

opportunities. Thus, the RMP must set out a clear and meaningful standard (such as 160 acre surface 

spacing, maximal directional drilling already used, and new NEPA analysis) to be met before allowing 

any conversion of these areas to Intensively Developed Fields. The opportunity for conversion under any 

lesser or other, undefined standard must be removed from the RMP. 

Response: At the RMP stage it is not possible to know whether or where Minimally Developed Areas 

may actually be developed to the level to trigger consideration for conversion. Therefore, it is not possible 

at the RMP stage to accurately determine what the level of expansion may be or what the site-specific 

impacts of the expansion/conversion would be. The EIS does not imply that the conversion would be 

performed absent NEPA, but specifies that the appropriate environmental analysis would be conducted. 

Please note that the term “Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” 

in the final EIS.

Comment: Page 2-20 Yates does not necessarily object to dividing the area into emphasis areas. 

However, as pointed out previously in these comments regarding the inadequate range of alternatives 

addressed in the DEIS, Alternative 4 fails to provide an adequate range of management options. BLM 

needs to establish one more area that provides for Moderately Developed Areas that would give priority 

to exploration activities in currently leased areas while protecting wildlife or other values. In doing so, 

BLM’s management will be more efficient and will not result in violations of valid existing lease rights. 

BLM must also acknowledge that oil and gas activities do not have the impacts on wildlife alluded to in 

the DEIS. The agency has failed to justify the need for large block NSO areas to protect wildlife habitat. 

According to Chapter 3, all population trends are stable or up for big game animals. Clearly, no new 

measures, particularly large blocks of NSO, are necessary to protect big game species since existing 

practices have ensured the health of the species.

Response: The RMP does provide a reasonable range of alternatives and does meet BLM multiple-use 

management requirements. Please be reminded that the multiple-use requirements of FLPMA do not 

require BLM to manage each and every acre under its jurisdiction for multiple use, but do require 

multiple-use management on a logical unit or landscape level. The “Minimally Developed Areas” is a 

designation for areas that would be available for oil and gas leasing and development with standard lease 

stipulations and timing limitation and controlled surface use restrictions where appropriate. It provides a 

level of management between the Intensively Developed designation and the Unavailable/Large Block 

NSO designations. Although the document refers to it as minimally developed it could just as easily be 

called moderately developed. Please note that the term “Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed 

to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS. 

A27-330 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Scientific wildlife studies show that certain wildlife occurrences have declined in the Jonah Field and on 

the Pinedale Anticline and that certain oil and gas operations have displaced winter wildlife in the Big 

Piney-La Barge area. Big game and sage-grouse lek monitoring show that big game wintering populations 

and lek attendance has experienced some increase in certain areas outside of these fields. The large block 

NSO and unavailable area designations are intended to provide enhanced wildlife protection in such 

areas.

Comment: Page 2-143 From a project approval standpoint, it is unclear what changes would result when 

an areas is “moved to Intensively Developed Field status.

Response: As currently written, once an area converts from the Minimally Developed designation to the 

Intensively Developed status, it would be managed under the “Intensively Developed Field” scenario 

described in Chapter 2 of the draft EIS. Please note that the conversion would be subject to additional 

NEPA analysis (i.e., EA or EIS), which could impose additional restrictions. Please note that the term 

“Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS.

Comment: Intensively Developed Fields would include not only the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Fields 

but also the Big Piney-La Barge, Deer Hills, and Castle Creek fields. Map 2-9. Exceptions to protective 

stipulations so as to allow year-round drilling and development would be considered. 2-120. Lands 

subject to these provisions would cover nearly 11 percent of the total land surface in the Pinedale Field 

Office and 20 percent of the federally-owned surface lands administered by the BLM in the Pinedale 

Field Office. 1-1, 2-120 to 2-122. Allowance would be made for these intensively developed areas to be 

“enlarged as appropriate.” 2-47. Yet, the Draft RMP fails completely to define the process by which this 

enlargement could be done and this undefined allowance makes it impossible for the RMP DEIS to fully 

and effectively evaluate the geographic extent and environmental impacts under the “intensively 

developed” management regime.

Response: The draft EIS does provide criteria for the conversion from “Minimally Developed” to 

“Intensively Developed.” Additional clarification has been incorporated into the final EIS. Please note 

that the term “Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final 

EIS.

Comment: Minimally Developed Areas would also be available for new leasing. 2-120. Likewise, 

existing leases could be developed under their lease terms. Id. And if development in the “Minimally 

Developed” area reached one bottom-hole well per 160 acres, or an even lesser density under vaguely 

defined circumstances, the area could be converted into an Intensively Developed Field. 2-47, 2-121. No 

explanation is given as to why 160-acre spacing was chosen as the trigger for re-classification or why it is 

based on bottom-hole well density rather than well spacing on the surface, which has far more relevance 

to most if not all environmental impacts.

Response: The 160-acre conversion trigger is based on the WGFD report Minimum Programmatic 

Standards Recommended by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to Sustain Important Wildlife 

Habitats Affected by Oil and Gas Development (Steve Tessman, et. al., May 24, 2004) which states that 

habitat effectiveness significantly degrades when well densities exceed four wells per square mile. 

Bottom-hole spacing was used as the metric because the disruptive activity associated with developing 

wells is very similar whether they be multiple wells on a pad or individual wells on tighter surface 

spacing, Sawyer’s study shows that the human activity is as much or more of an impact than the actual 

loss of habitat. Additional clarification has been incorporated into the final EIS.

Comment: The most critical need relative to the improvement of Alternative 3 so as to make it 

satisfactory as the RMP for the Pinedale Field Office is to close the loopholes that currently make the 

Pinedale RMP A27-331 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

nominally Unavailable Areas (606,500 acres) potentially available for development, perhaps even at 

intensive levels .4 There is no assurance intensive development will not occur due to loopholes in the 

nominal protection, and thus this otherwise somewhat strong provision may be illusionary. The BLM 

should eliminate this possibility. The two loopholes that must be closed were mentioned above. First, the 

provision allowing conversion of these “unavailable” lands to an Intensely Developed Field if down-hole 

well spacing reaches one well per 160 acres must be eliminated. Second, the provisions allowing this 

designation to be “lifted” if drainage of oil and gas is determined to be occurring must modified.

Response: BLM is required to ensure proper collection of royalties for the extraction of federal fluid 

mineral products. BLM, however, does not have the authority to assess charges on the drainage of federal 

minerals extracted through non-federal wells, such as wells on state or private mineral estates. 

Consequently, the caveat to allow wells to be developed in the unavailable area is essential to offset nonfederal wells draining federal mineral resources. Additional clarification concerning the conversion to 

Intensively Developed has been incorporated into the final EIS. 

Comment: In addition to evaluating the number of wells within a section, EOG encourages the BLM to 

also consider the age and historical extent of oil and gas production as well as the potential for oil and gas 

development when designating Intensively Developed Fields. The Big Piney/La Barge CAP area has been 

producing oil and gas for almost 100 years; oil and gas development is more than just an ongoing activity 

in the area, it is part of the area’s culture and history. EOG strongly encourages the BLM to designate 

Intensively Developed Fields using both existing oil and gas development, the potential for oil and gas 

development, and the historical context of development.

Response: The Management Situation Analysis, which is part of the RMP process, provides the historical 

perspective of oil and gas development in the planning area. This document can be found at 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents_MSA.html. The Intensively Developed Field 

designations are based on existing and anticipated development. The RMP also provides for conversion of 

areas to the Intensively Developed Field designation if the listed criteria are met.

Comment: A. No Surface Occupancy and Unavailable Designations: We have strong concerns about the 

effectiveness of designation of areas as No Surface Occupancy Areas under the DEIS, particularly in light 

of the fact that NSO areas can be changed to surface-disturbance areas for oil and gas development under 

certain circumstances: if a producing well is “causing drainage of the oil or gas resource” and if downhole density reaches one well on 160 acres or higher density. In the latter instance, lands under an NSO 

designation could become Intensively Developed Fields. Even though the management emphasis for NSO 

areas would be on environmental protection, particularly wildlife habitat, these lands would still be 

available for leasing and also be subject to the loopholes mentioned above. This would leave these lands 

ultimately unprotected, despite their initial designation as NSO. These two loopholes must be closed. 

These same two loopholes also apply to lands which would be designated as Unavailable Areas for oil 

and gas leasing. Where lands are designated Unavailable Areas, they must be kept that way. Otherwise, 

there is little purpose to such designation and the entire management plan becomes a sham. 

For every effort BLM makes to provide conservation measures, it supplies loopholes, exceptions, 

waivers, etc., to nullify the effectiveness of such measures. This must be changed in the RMP FEIS. At a 

minimum, the two loopholes must be closed. In addition, BLM first needs to acknowledge that it has the 

authority to not allow well density to exceed the 160-acre threshold that would permit an NSO or 

Unavailable area to be converted to an Intensively Developed Field. And then BLM needs to exercise its 

authority to prevent any surface disturbance which would conflict with its stated management emphasis in 

those areas. In areas with special resources and needs, such as big game crucial winter range, migration 

corridors, and parturition areas, well density should be even lower than the 160-acre threshold. 

Attachments enclosed (list of references). 

A27-332 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: BLM is required to ensure proper collection of royalties for the extraction of federal fluid 

mineral products. BLM, however, does not have the authority to assess charges on the drainage of federal 

minerals extracted through non-federal wells, such as wells on state or private mineral estates. 

Consequently, the caveat to allow wells to be developed in the unavailable area is essential to offset nonfederal wells draining federal mineral resources. BLM acknowledges that it has the authority to approve 

or deny converting Minimally Developed, Unavailable, and/or NSO areas to Intensively Developed 

Fields. The final EIS provides revised criteria for considering conversions. Please note that the term 

“Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS. 

Comment: Even in Intensively Developed Fields, the BLM’s management approach strikes an 

inappropriate balance between wildlife resources and the recovery of much needed energy supplies. See 

RMP DEIS, pg. 2-81, Action b.l. Alternative 3 is also significantly flawed because it does not recognize 

the Big Piney/La Barge CAP area as an Intensively Developed Field. The Big Piney/La Barge CAP is one 

of the oldest oil and gas producing areas in the entire planning area and must be designated as an 

Intensively Developed Field. Similarly, exceptions allowing year-round drilling should be authorized 

within the Big Piney/La Barge CAP area, and the western section of the planning area in general.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP is designed to present a reasonable range of alternatives and make 

projections of the impacts associated with each of those alternatives. Accordingly, the draft EIS projects 

varying levels of impacts to air quality, wildlife, and socioeconomic values, as well as to other resource 

values. Alternative 4 provides a mid-range of impacts between the higher level of commodity production 

in Alternative 2 and the higher level of surface resource protection in Alternative 3. Excluding the 

Coordinated Activity Plan (CAP) area from Intensively Developed Field designation was purposely done 

to provide the range of alternatives. The CAP area has been developed under the Minimally Developed 

(management under seasonal stipulation) scenario since the approval of the 1988 RMP and the decision 

record for the Big Piney-La Barge CAP in August of 1991. Even under Alternative 3, “Existing oil and 

gas or other mineral lease rights would be honored.”

Comment: The BLM must modify the boundaries of the Intensively Developed Fields under Alternative 

4 to include more developed lands in the western portion of the resource area. In particular, lands adjacent 

to and within the Big Piney/La Barge CAP are not within an Intensively Developed Field. The lands 

within Townships 28 - 30 North, Ranges 112 - 113 West should be included within the Intensively 

Developed Field category. The BLM’s analysis demonstrates that the entire western portion of the 

resource area has potential for oil and gas development, and the above lands have been producing oil and 

gas for 100 years. Further, the BLM’s analysis in the Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential 

Report for the Pinedale RMP (2003) more accurately defines the boundaries of the Big Piney/La Barge 

area and the significant oil and gas development that has taken place in the area. See Mineral Occurrence 

Report, Figure 3-7. The analysis in the Mineral Occurrence report further indicates that “[m]oderate 

development potential is anticipated in a large area of the La Barge Platform, at approximately T25-29N, 

R112-113W, and in the central and north parts of the RMPPA [Resource Management Plan Planning 

Area]. The north part of this moderate development potential extends onto USFS lands.” See Mineral 

Occurrence Report, Figure 3-7. The BLM must increase the size of the Intensively Developed Fields 

under Alternative 4.

Response: BLM does not agree that the referenced area needs to be changed to Intensively Developed. 

Alternative 4 allows for conversion of lands designated as “Minimally Developed” to the “Intensively 

Developed” when the stated criteria are met. The areas identified as “Minimally Developed” currently 

have well development at levels that are less than the criteria for conversion. Please note that the term 

“Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS.

Pinedale RMP A27-333 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: The BLM’s management of Intensively Developed Fields and Minimally Developed Areas 

must be revised under Alternative 4. Throughout the description of the alternative the BLM suggests that 

oil and gas development will be managed to minimize impacts, noise, grouse predation, etc. The BLM 

must insert the word “reasonably” before the word minimize each time it appears in Alternative 4. Failing 

to do so could be construed as creating absolute management obligations for the BLM, thereby limiting 

its management flexibility and potentially subjecting the BLM and oil and gas operators to increased 

litigation by groups and individuals opposed to oil and gas development. The BLM must recognize that 

there are technical and economic limitations to the COAs and stipulations that can be applied, particularly 

to existing leases. The BLM lacks the authority to impose mitigation measures on oil and gas leases that 

are not technically or economically feasible. 

Response: BLM disagrees that it is necessary to revise the prescribed management for the Intensively 

Developed Fields and Minimally Developed Areas. The prescribed management is consistent with the 

laws and regulations guiding BLM’s management of the public lands and minerals under its jurisdiction. 

It is also not necessary to insert “reasonably” proceeding before “minimize” in the referenced text 

because the term “minimize” is analogous to reduce and infers flexibility. Please note that the term 

“Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS.

Comment: Finally, the Pinedale RMP DEIS fails to provide the requisite “hard look” at the 

environmental impacts of each alternative. Specifically, under the Preferred Alternative, “Minimally 

Developed Fields” and “Large Block NSO Areas” will simply be converted to “Intensively Developed 

Fields” when bottom-hole well density exceeds 1 well per 160 acres. This outcome is controlled by 

private industry not the agency charged with managing these public resources. In addition, the No Surface 

Occupancy (NSO) and unavailable designations of “Large Block NSO Areas” and “Unavailable Areas” 

could be lifted and specific areas leased if development on adjacent state or private mineral estate is 

determined to be draining federal oil and/or gas resources. Again, management decisions are left in the 

hands of private parties who have no responsibility to conserve wildlife and other public values of these 

lands. Because of these loopholes, intensive oil and gas development may ultimately cover much more of 

the planning area than originally predicted3 rendering the DEIS’s analysis of environmental impacts 

meaningless.

Response: The draft EIS does not state that “Minimally Developed Fields” and “Large Block NSO 

Areas” will simply be converted to “Intensively Developed Fields” when bottom-hole well density 

exceeds one well per 160 acres. The draft EIS states that “Minimally Developed Fields” and “Large 

Block NSO Areas” could convert to Intensively Developed and that this could require a field 

development EA, EIS, or supplemental EIS. The NEPA requirement relative to conversion has been 

changed to the following in the final EIS: “Conversion would require preparation of additional NEPA 

analysis and public involvement.” Please note that the term “Minimally Developed Areas” has been 

changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS.

Comment: The discussion of actions (in Minerals Management) that include converting lands to 

Intensively Developed Fields when bottom-hole well density on pre-existing lease exceeds one well per 

160 acres is mystifying. Shouldn’t the consideration be place on surface density rather than bottom-hole 

well density? 

Response: The 160-acre conversion trigger is based on the WGFD report Minimum Programmatic 

Standards Recommended by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to Sustain Important Wildlife 

Habitats Affected by Oil and Gas Development, (Steve Tessman, et. al., May 24, 2004) which states that 

habitat effectiveness significantly degrades when well densities exceed four wells per square mile. 

Bottom-hole spacing was used as the metric because the disruptive activity associated with developing 

wells is very similar whether they are multiple wells on a pad or individual wells on tighter surface 

A27-334 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

spacing. Sawyer’s study shows that the human activity is as much or more of an impact than the actual 

loss of habitat. Additional clarification has been incorporated into the final EIS.

Comment: Does phased development mean a move from NSO to “intensively developed” after wells are 

completed? It appears incorrect to say that different levels of development are/will be allowed in 

minimally developed areas vs. intensively developed areas. Moreover, it is inappropriate for BLM to 

attempt to impose phased development because such development is already phased due to the nature of 

the business, including timing of capital investments, rig availability, etc. The artificial phased approach 

proposed in the Preferred Alternative will simply force increased development in certain areas, which 

could have greater, but avoidable, impacts. Page 2-2 “Exploration of new and existing leases could result 

in a discovery. When exploration of an oil or gas reservoir reaches a down-hole well density of one well 

every 160 acres, the area would become an Intensively Developed Field. Environmental documentation 

would be prepared to analyze impacts and to determine operating methods, mitigation, and BMPs to be 

used in the efficient and complete development of the field. Conversion could require preparation of a 

field development EA, EIS, or supplemental EIS” Comment: We recommend that BLM clarify whether 

restrictions will be eased as an area progresses from NSO to “minimally developed” to an “intensively 

developed area” since the stated objective for intensively developed is on efficient and complete 

development and production of the oil and gas resource. Page 2-11 Visual Resources Management 

“Projects of all types within established visual resource management (VRM) class areas would be 

generally required to conform to the objectives and characteristics of the VRM classification.”

Comment–As discussed on Page 2-8, “When an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a valid existing 

right; BLM cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the lease. Existing leases would not be 

affected by new closures and/or areas administratively unavailable for lease, and restrictions could not be 

added to existing leases.” This same caveat also applies to changes in Visual Resource Management 

classifications. It is counterproductive for the agency to impose a Class I or II VRM on areas already 

involved in oil and gas development. It appears that the imposition of VRM I or II restrictions on over 

258,610 acres of the planning area is designed to thwart oil and gas development, even on existing leases. 

We recommend BLM revise the Preferred Alternative to ensure such conflicts are avoided, especially on 

current leases and within existing oil and gas fields. Additionally, BLM must analyze the socioeconomic 

effect such designations would have upon the planning area, including an accounting of the loss of 

mineral production and revenues. Page 2-13 Compensation (Offsite) Mitigation “Compensatory or offsite 

mitigation proposed by oil and gas or other operators could be considered and analyzed in future 

environmental documents as possible mitigation for proposed activities within the planning area. 

Proposed offsite mitigation would be described and analyzed for effectiveness in detail on a projectspecific basis. Planning for offsite mitigation would be performed in coordination with local government 

agencies”. 

Response: Phased development in the context of Table 2-1 of the draft EIS means that under Alternatives 

3 and 4, the entire planning area would not be available for development at the time. Intensive 

development would occur in the “Intensively Development Area”, a less intense level of development 

would occur in the “Traditional Leasing Area”, and no development would occur in the “Unavailable 

Areas”. The conversion language and the areas available for leasing and subject to NSO stipulations have 

been changed in the final EIS. The RFD, hence the socioeconomic impact to oil and gas development, 

does reflect the VRM classifications (i.e., the RFD for the various alternatives is reduced based on the 

restrictions imposed on oil and gas leasing/development through the given alternative). Please note that 

the term “Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS. 

Comment: Page 2-20 “The planning area would be divided into four areas for management of oil and gas 

leasing and development (Map 2-9). Intensively Developed Fields would be managed for intensive oil 

and gas activities while protecting wildlife habitats to the extent practicable. Minimally Developed Areas 

Pinedale RMP A27-335 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

would be managed for protection of important values during oil and gas exploration, but would provide 

opportunity for intensive oil and gas activities. Large Block NSO Areas would be managed for protection 

of wildlife habitats through offering oil and gas leases with NSO stipulations. Unavailable Areas would 

be managed for protection of wildlife habitats through indefinitely postponing the availability of lands for 

oil and gas leasing. Transportation planning would be required in all areas to reduce road density, 

duplication of routes, and unnecessary routes.” Comment: We do not necessarily object to dividing the 

area into emphasis areas. However, as pointed out previously in these comments regarding the inadequate 

range of alternatives addressed in the DEIS, Alternative 4 fails to provide an adequate range of 

management options. BLM needs to establish one more area that provides for Moderately Developed 

Areas that would give priority to exploration activities in currently leased areas while protecting wildlife 

or other values. In so doing, BLM’s management will be more efficient and avoid violations of valid 

existing lease rights. BLM must also acknowledge that oil and gas activities do not have the impacts on 

wildlife alluded to in the DEIS. 

Response: BLM feels the draft EIS/RMP does provide a reasonable range of alternatives. The term 

Minimally Developed Area has been changed in the final EIS to more accurately describe the leasing 

situation in these areas. The Traditional Leasing Area is a designation for areas that would be available 

for oil and gas leasing and development with standard lease stipulations, timing limitation, and controlled 

surface use restrictions where appropriate. It provides a level of management between the Intensively 

Developed and the Unavailable designations. 

Comment: Page 2-47 “Emphasis in these areas would be placed on efficient and complete development 

and production of the oil and gas resource. Mitigation of impacts through stipulations and BMPs would 

be applied, and operations would be conducted in a way that would facilitate ultimate reclamation of the 

field. Specific mitigations, conditions of approval, BMPs, and reclamation requirements for each 

Intensively Developed Field would vary depending on the resources affected and the characteristics of the 

proposed field development. As gas or oil fields expand or exploration reaches beyond the delineated 

area, Intensively Developed Fields could be enlarged as appropriate.”

Comment–Management of oil and gas operations in intensively developed fields must recognize the need 

for efficient and complete development by allowing year-round drilling and development operations on 

new and existing leases in Intensively Developed areas, particularly when drilling multiple wells from a 

single pad. We recommend that BLM allow project on-sites to take place at any time of year to facilitate 

year-round drilling in these areas. Page 2-47 “Emphasis in these {Intensively Developed} areas would be 

placed on efficient and complete development and production of the oil and gas resource. Any new leases 

issued would have lease terms in accordance with management objectives and stipulations as determined 

in the environmental document authorizing the field (Environmental Assessment [EA] Decision Record 

or EIS ROD). Comment: This statement is confusing. It is unclear whether the stipulations identified in 

RMP/ROD would be placed on new leases or whether BLM anticipates new leases to be issued with new 

stipulations as a result of a FIELD DEVELOPMENT EA or EIS. Regardless of whether BLM chooses to 

delay leasing in certain areas, the leasing analysis and appropriate stipulation guidelines must be 

addressed by the RMP analysis. It is unacceptable to expect industry to fund leasing analyses as a part of 

a field development NEPA analysis. 

Page 2-47 “Emphasis in these areas would be on providing contiguous wildlife habitat, wildlife refuge 

areas and migration routes, public land recreation opportunities, opportunities for appropriate non-surface 

disturbing activities, and maintenance and improvement of current resource conditions while allowing 

leasing of the areas for oil and gas production. New oil and gas leases in these areas would be 

encumbered by NSO stipulations. Oil and gas operators would have the right to explore existing leases. 

Previously existing leases could be occupied on the surface unless the existing lease carries an NSO 

stipulation.” Comment: BLM has failed to disclose how much of the proposed NSO areas are currently 

A27-336 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

leased without NSO stipulations. It is unclear whether the emphasis in the area remains on non-surface 

disturbing activities or whether it will shift to efficient and complete development of oil and gas. Is this an 

area where BLM would REQUIRE offsite mitigation? 

Page 2-47 “Emphasis in these areas would be on traditional multiple use management, and 

accommodating all approved uses to the extent possible. New oil and gas leases would be issued with 

lease terms and stipulations designed to minimize the impact of oil and gas exploration activities on the 

environment and wildlife habitats. Oil and gas operators would have the right to explore existing and new 

leases. COAs could be applied to individual APDs where necessary to minimize the impacts of 

exploration. Oil and gas operations in these areas would conform to the management objectives and 

actions described in the RMP for each alternative, including timing and distance limitations, noise 

restrictions, human presence limitations, restrictions on placement of permanent or tall structures, and 

spacing of exploratory wells. 

Exploration of new and existing leases could result in a discovery. When exploration of an oil or gas 

reservoir reaches a down-hole well density of one well every 160 acres, the area would become an 

Intensively Developed Field. Environmental documentation would be prepared to analyze impacts and to 

determine operating methods, mitigation, and BMPs to be used in the efficient and complete development 

of the field.” Comment: Even if the field develops to Intensive and emphasis would be placed on efficient 

and complete development and production of the oil and gas resource, the same requirements, COAs, and 

other actions required for minimally developed areas would still be employed unless changed through 

subsequent NEPA. BLM needs to clarify how it will facilitate such changes in the FEIS.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP does provide an opportunity for year-round drilling operations in areas 

designated as Intensively Developed. Page 2-120 of the draft EIS, Objective 1, Action Item c. states: 

“Exceptions would be considered to allow year-round drilling and development operations on new and 

existing leases . . .” The referenced statement on lease stipulations is revised as follows: “Any new leases 

in an Intensively Developed Area would be issued with lease terms in accordance with management 

objectives and stipulations in the guiding NEPA document for the Field/Intensively Developed Area (e.g., 

if the guiding NEPA document authorized year-round drilling and development operations, then the new 

lease would be issued absent season limitation stipulations).” Leasing analysis would not be conducted 

through field development NEPA documents. However, leases issued subsequent to the development 

NEPA document for an Intensively Developed Area would be issued consistent with the management 

objectives and restriction in that “field development EA/EIS”. The draft EIS/RMP does not emphatically 

state how many leased acres are currently encumbered with NSO restrictions; however, Map 1-3 depicts 

leased lands and Map 2-1 shows current NSO areas. The management emphasis would preclude surface 

disturbance within the NSO. Mineral extraction would be allowed from areas outside the NSO. As 

directed by BLM Washington Office IM 2005-063, compensatory mitigation is voluntary, not required. 

The conversion from Minimally Developed to Intensively Developed would require a conversion-specific 

NEPA document, which would specify the management of the conversion area. Please note that the term 

“Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS.

Comment: Page 2-120 “Exceptions would be considered to allow year-round drilling and development 

operations on new and existing leases in the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, Big Piney-La Barge, Deer Hills, 

and Castle Creek oil and gas fields that are currently encumbered by seasonal restrictions. Such 

exceptions would be subject to additional environmental analysis and the leaseholder/operator 

implementing offsetting mitigation. Comment: Exceptions should be considered for all intensively 

developed areas. On the other hand, why consider exceptions? Since the goal in intensive areas is the 

efficient development of gas, BLM should allow year-round drilling on multiple well pads and other 

similar efficiencies in all areas designated for intensive development. We are concerned that “offsetting” 

mitigation will be required when other suitable means may be available. 

Pinedale RMP A27-337 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Page 2-122 “Provide opportunities for geophysical and geologic data acquisition while mitigating impacts 

on important resource values. Actions: 

a. Geophysical data gathering methods that involve only casual use of the surface (as defined in 43 CFR 

§3150) would be permitted throughout the planning area. 

b. Vehicle-based geophysical activities would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 

c. The use of surface and/or above-ground (Poulter shot) explosive charges for geophysical exploration 

would be assessed case-by-case. 

d. Geophysical projects, including projects proposed in areas with an NSO restriction, would be analyzed 

and mitigation developed on a case-by-case basis.”

Comment–Since it is stated in (a.) that “geophysical data gathering methods that involve only casual use” 

shall be permitted, (b.), (c.) and (d.) are redundant and should be deleted. As currently stated, the methods 

to be used are adequately defined within the definition of “casual use”. However, the term “case-by-case 

basis” is used to eliminate the useful guidelines of the definition of “casual use”, offering decisionmaking latitude that need not be included in this process. There is no reason to complicate that which is 

already uncomplicated. Since the definition of “casual use” allows for “activities that involve practices 

which do not ordinarily lead to any appreciable disturbance or damage to lands, resources, and 

improvements”, and ATV’s, due to their very design, do not cause any appreciable disturbance or 

damage, ATV’s should never be subject to such limitations. Therefore, the following clause should be 

included after the existing sentence in (a.), “ATV operation is considered a casual use activity in this 

RMP.” 

Page 2-120 “Intensively Developed Fields Make federal lands and minerals within existing oil and gas 

fields (175,750 acres) available for intensive oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and 

production “ Page 2-143 “Intensively Developed Areas would be managed for intensive oil and gas 

activities while protecting habitats and minimizing direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the extent 

practicable When development of a newly-discovered oil or gas resource reaches a down-hole well 

density of one well every 160 acres, the area would become an Intensively Developed Field.” Comment: 

BLM needs to explain whether and how mitigations, COAs, BMPs, and reclamation requirements for 

each well will change once an area is reclassified as intensively developed. 

Response: The referenced text has been updated in the final EIS. A blanket exception is not appropriate 

because there may be specific areas within Intensively Developed Areas with functioning wildlife habitat 

that would warrant precluding an exception. The casual use definition in 43 CFR 3150 states: “Casual use 

means activities that involve practices which do not ordinarily lead to any appreciable disturbance or 

damage to lands, resources and improvements. For example, activities which do not involve use of heavy 

equipment or explosives and which do not involve vehicular movement except over established roads and 

trails are casual use.” The operations discussed in items b, c, and d do not meet the criteria for casual use 

and therefore are not redundant. Operations that meet the casual use definition would be allowed. 

Depending on the location and intensity of ATV use, it may or may not be considered casual use. It would 

likely not be considered casual use on a steep erosive slope, in some wetland/riparian areas, in visually 

sensitive areas, in WSAs, etc. 

Concerning the conversion to Intensively Developed, the terminology has been changed in the final EIS 

from “the area would become” to “the area could become”. How mitigations, COAs, BMPs, and 

reclamation requirements for each well would change once an area was reclassified to Intensively 

Developed would be determined through the area-specific NEPA analysis for the conversion. 

Comment: Page A7-4 “A waiver, exception, or modification may be approved if the record shows that 

circumstances or relative resource values have changed or that the lessee can demonstrate that operations 

A27-338 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts and that less restrictive stipulations would protect 

the public interest.” Comment: The RMP should recognize that while the described activities may require 

exceptions in minimally developed or exploratory areas, exceptions for well drilling operations, well 

completion operations, regularly scheduled workover operations, geophysical exploration, etc., must not 

be required for intensively developed areas; these activities should be monitored and, if not carried out 

responsibly, additional requirements or restrictions could be imposed in the future 

Response: A blanket exception is not appropriate because there may be specific areas within Intensively 

Developed Areas with functioning wildlife habitat that would warrant precluding an exception. Imposing 

additional requirements or restrictions in the future, because an operator did not act responsibly, is 

analogous to closing the barn door after the horses are already out. 

Comment: Item: Page 2-2, Section 2.2.1, Alternatives Development Process “Exploration of new and 

existing leases could result in a discovery. When exploration of an oil or gas reservoir reaches a downhole well density of one well every 160 acres, the area would become an Intensively Developed Field. 

Environmental documentation would be prepared to analyze impacts and to determine operating methods, 

mitigation, and BMPs to be used in the efficient and complete development of the field. Conversion could 

require preparation of a field development EA, EIS, or supplemental EIS.” Comment: We recommend 

that BLM clarify whether restrictions will be eased as an area progresses from NSO to minimally 

developed to intensively developed.

Response: Conversion to Intensively Developed would require additional analysis that will guide the 

management and restrictions for the conversion areas, see revisions and clarifications to the conversion 

criteria in the final EIS.

Comment: Item: Page 2-143, Section 2.5.5, Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management “Minimally 

Developed Areas would be managed for protection of important values during oil and gas exploration but 

would provide opportunity for intensive oil and gas development. Should a discovery (development) be 

made and proceed to development, these lands would be moved to Intensively Developed Field status and 

would be subject to mitigation to minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of such activities.” 

Comment: From a project approval standpoint, it is unclear what changes would result when an areas is 

“moved to Intensively Developed Field status.”

Response: In general, BLM anticipates that Intensively Developed areas would be subject to reduced 

seasonal restrictions, such as winter drilling afforded to Questar through the decision record for the 

Questar Year-round Drilling Proposal. See action item c under Objective 1 on page 2-120 of the draft 

EIS.

Comment: Pg 2-47 to 2-49 2.5.2 Oil and Gas Management Areas for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Intensively 

Developed Oil and Gas Field designation should be based on greater than 160 acre SURFACE spacing 

not down-hole spacing as stated in the draft RMP. The use of multiple well pads should be encouraged; as 

currently written the use of multiple well pads is discouraged. Surface disturbance, not subsurface 

geology, should dictate the level of management (i.e. stipulations, BMPs’, COA’s, etc.) applied to surface 

operations.

Response: BLM believes using bottom-hole spacing as the metric is appropriate. The 160-acre 

conversion trigger is based on the WGFD report Minimum Programmatic Standards Recommended by 

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to Sustain Important Wildlife Habitats Affected by Oil and Gas 

Development (Steve Tessman, et. al., May 24, 2004) that states that habitat effectiveness significantly 

degrades when well densities exceed four wells per square mile. Bottom-hole spacing was used as the 

metric because the disruptive activity associated with developing wells is very similar whether they are 

Pinedale RMP A27-339 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

multiple wells on a pad or individual wells on tighter surface spacing. Sawyer’s study shows that the 

human activity is as much or more of an impact than the actual loss of habitat. Additional clarification has 

been incorporated into the final EIS. 

The draft EIS/RMP sets the framework for implementation of a number of BMPs, including directional 

drilling and multiple well pads. Specific implementation would be developed through project-level NEPA 

analysis. Surface resource values and the anticipated impacts to those values are the guide for instituting 

BMPs and other mitigation. Subsurface geology has no bearing on the implementation of surface 

protection measures.

Comment: EnCana also supports the flexibility provided in this management approach. Allowing areas 

that are not currently intensively developed to be managed as Intensively Developed Fields if downhole 

density exceeds 1 well every 160 acres allows for jw(Nfd S potential development in currently unknown 

or undiscovered areas. This flexibility also allows for improvements in technology that may facilitate 

increased development in existing and older fields, or in areas where development was not previously 

economic or feasible. 

Response: The conversion criteria has been modified and clarified in the final EIS.

Comment: The BLM should modify the boundaries of the Intensively Developed Fields under 

Alternative 4 to include more developed lands surrounding Jonah Field. The BLM’s analysis 

demonstrates that the entire area surrounding Jonah Field has high potential for oil and gas development, 

including up to 500 wells per township. See RMP DEIS, Map 4-1. The BLM must increase the size of the 

Intensively Developed Fields under Alternative 4 to coincide with any and all areas that have high 

potential for oil and gas development. 

Response: The Intensively Developed Area boundaries target the areas where intensive development is 

occurring. The RMP does provide opportunities for the expansion of designated Intensively Developed 

Areas when certain criteria are met; therefore it is not necessary to include all very high or high 

development potential areas at this time.

Comment: EPA’s primary concern is when, and if, intensely developed areas emerge or enlarge, that the 

appropriate NEPA analysis is completed at that time and includes a comprehensive cumulative impacts 

analysis. In Chapter 2, the draft EIS indicates that expansion of intensely developed fields and 

reclassification of minimally developed fields or NSO areas would occur on a case-by-case basis and with 

proper environmental documentation. Elsewhere (page 2-143), the draft EIS states “Should a discovery be 

made and proceed to development, these (minimally developed) lands would be moved to intensely 

developed field status.” EPA is concerned by the possibility that intensely developed fields could expand 

piecemeal, in a case-by-case, APD-by-APD basis, without the opportunity for a full environmental 

cumulative impact analysis. White this may not be BLM’s intent, we recommend the Final EIS clarify the 

process for expansion of areas that are managed for intense energy development and the additional NEPA 

analysis that would be completed

Response: Additional clarification on conversion criteria has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: The most recent Draft Supplemental EIS prepared for the Pinedale Anticline, an “intensely 

developed field”, disclosed potential cumulative impacts to air quality and to wildlife, which if 

unmitigated, could be significant. Given the magnitude of the potential impacts from “intensely 

developed fields” in proximity to highly sensitive natural resources, EPA recommends that BLM 

complete a comprehensive cumulative impact analysis for any expansion of an “intensely developed 

field” or new “intensely developed field”. It is unclear from the Draft EIS, if and when these intensely 

A27-340 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

developed fields expand, how BLM will meet the management goals for wildlife, vegetation, and multiple 

use management detailed in the Draft EIS. 

Response: Additional clarification on conversion criteria has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: Additionally, by making allowance for conversion of areas to Intensely Developed Fields, the 

BLM must ensure the RMP EIS considers the environmental impacts of such a conversion. The RMP EIS 

currently provides no analysis of the impacts of such a conversion. This must be corrected in the final 

EIS. The BLM clearly anticipates such conversions, otherwise it would not have made the rather specific 

provisions it has made for such conversions. Consequently the environmental impacts of these 

conversions must be considered in the RMP EIS.

Response: The analysis reflects the current size of the oil and gas management areas (Map 2-9). An RMP 

amendment and additional NEPA analysis would accompany any conversion. 

Year-round Drilling 

Comment: Because I’ve seen it done effectively elsewhere, I want you to also explore the option of 

utilizing year-round drilling/access to help reduce long term impacts of development. It’s just silly to tell 

companies that they can’t work in some seasons -- even if those seasons are more conducive to 

development. It’s a safety and a wildlife issue. 

Response: It is reasonable to apply stipulations to protect surface resources when permitting gas 

development or other industrial activities. The draft EIS provides flexibility for year-round drilling to be 

contemplated in developing intensive gas fields, such as the Pinedale Anticline.

Comment: Page 2-120 “Exceptions would be considered to allow year-round drilling and development 

operations on new and existing leases in the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, Big Piney-La Barge, Deer Hills, 

and Castle Creek oil and gas fields that are currently encumbered by seasonal restrictions. Such 

exceptions would be subject to additional environmental analysis and the leaseholder/operator 

implementing offsetting mitigation “ Comment: Chevron believes that the Pinedale RMP and the WY 

BLM in general should include the option of reduced intensity, year-round drilling as an RMP 

development option for any field in which the operator makes the necessary operating and technology 

commitments and surface resource impacts would overall be reduced. 

Response: With the exception of seasonal restrictions for sage-grouse nesting in the minimal disturbance 

area, Alternative 2 does not impose seasonal restrictions and therefore meets the request for consideration 

of a year-round drilling option in reduced intensity areas. 

Comment: I hope that when you finalize the new plan it will be clear that energy exploration and 

production activities will have year-round access to the permitted lands. It seems to me that there will be 

less impact on wildlife resources especially if the construction and drilling activities can be started and 

finished as quickly as possible. It doesn’t make any sense to start one season, then shut down, then come 

back to finish the project the next season. That scenario would double the impact on wildlife.

Response: BLM is required to manage the federal lands and mineral estates under its jurisdiction for 

multiple use. The RMP builds a framework for subsequent project-level NEPA documents. Such a 

framework includes suggested and required mitigation measures, as well as best management practices. 

As such, it is appropriate for the RMP to set the framework for measures, including the use of seasonal 

restrictions, that could reduce impacts. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would designate intensive development 

areas where seasonal restrictions would be relaxed.

Pinedale RMP A27-341 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Comment: Studies have been conducted in our own state and in Utah that show year round production 

has less of an impact on wildlife not to mention many other benefits. 

1. Year round production allows for more carefully planned drilling programs. 

2. Year round production allows for safer drilling programs because workers are able to live in the same 

place year round resulting in a more stable community 

3. Year round drilling programs create a more stable economy by helping to minimize the peaks and 

valleys in production. 

Finally it helps wildlife by reducing truck traffic and avoiding the rushed hustle and bustle of a short 

windowed drilling season. 

Please consider implementing a year round program as you finalize the Pinedale RMP.

Response: The draft EIS provides flexibility for year-round drilling to be contemplated in developing 

intensive gas fields, such as the Pinedale Anticline.

Clustering Drilling, Directional Drilling, Phased Development 

Response: “Clustering” is currently occurring on the Pinedale Anticline and to a lesser extent in the 

Jonah Field where multiple wells (sometimes as many as 32) are developed from a single well pad. Antierosion techniques, such as crowning and ditching roads, installing silt barriers, gravelling or hard 

surfacing roads, and installing cross-drain culverts are routinely implemented through permits to drill and 

ROW grants.

Comment: Any and all petrochemical development in this area should strive to fit in with existing 

ecology. Automated drills and wells serviced from helicopters and/or by horsemen would eliminate 

degradation by roads in wilderness areas; slower development would be both less intrusive and more 

efficient as the wildlife continues to draw spectators and wellheads don’t displace natural scenery.

Comment: You should be CLUSTERING commercial drilling. 

Response: Development rates and infrastructure scenarios, such as clustering wells, are project-level 

issues that can be addressed through project-level EISs. “Clustering” is currently occurring on the 

Pinedale Anticline and to a lesser extent in the Jonah Field where multiple wells (sometimes as many as 

32) are developed from a single well pad.

Comment: This message is to tell you that personally I am absolutely and totally against any further gas 

well development in the Green River Valley. If I had my way that’s the way it would be. But if the Bush 

administration has its maniacal way in this at least withdraw more environmentally critical areas from the 

plan. Also minimize the environmental impact by carefully planning and concentrating the drill sites and 

strengthen the seasonal drilling restrictions to further minimize the adverse effects on wildlife during the 

breeding seasons. And slow the pace for well development. 

Response: Development rates and infrastructure scenarios are project-level issues that can be addressed 

through project-level EISs. “Clustering” or concentrating drill sites is currently occurring on the Pinedale 

Anticline and to a lesser extent in the Jonah Field where multiple wells (sometimes as many as 32) are 

developed from a single well pad. Seasonal restrictions are already designed to minimize impacts to the 

target species during crucial life-cycle periods. 

A27-342 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Comment: While we prefer the management plan laid out in Alternative Three, we believe it needs 

improvements to truly reflect your multiple use mandate and to provide the necessary protection for the 

significant cultural resources under your control. Therefore, we would urge you to adopt the following 

additional safeguards to Alternative Three:• Minimize the industry footprint by mandating clustered 

infrastructure and directional drilling;

Response: Clustering infrastructure and directional drilling are certainly best management practices to be 

employed where technically and economically feasible. They are project-level issues that can be 

addressed through project-level EISs. “Clustering” is currently occurring on the Pinedale Anticline and to 

a lesser extent in the Jonah Field where multiple wells (sometimes as many as 32) are developed from a 

single well pad.

Comment: The BLM correctly notes that directional drilling is taking place in the planning area. The 

BLM also notes on pages 3-41 - 3-42 and 4-49, 4-51 that directional drilling is not always technically or 

economically feasible. According to the RMP DEIS, EnCana’s success with directional drilling in Jonah 

Field has been relatively limited. Approximately 85% of the directional wells drilled in Jonah Field 

between 2002 and 2005 resulted in stuck casing, and subsequently the loss of 11.95 billion cubic feet of 

natural gas. Although directional drilling can be an appropriate tool in limited circumstances, it is not 

appropriate in every oil and gas field or for every operator. The BLM must also consider the significant 

economic costs associated with directional drilling; the BLM cannot impose unreasonable or uneconomic 

restrictions on existing leases.

Response: The impact analysis in Chapter 4 does acknowledge that increased cost associated with 

directional drilling could render some wells non-economic and some fluid mineral resources 

unrecoverable. The RMP sets the framework for directional drilling to be considered in project- and sitespecific project analysis. It is neither possible nor reasonable at the RMP stage to predict whether or not a 

given directional well would be successful and economicly viable. Different formations, different 

formation depths, the horizontal offset distance, and natural gas prices all play into determining whether 

or not a directional well would be successful. It would be incumbent on the operator to demonstrate to 

BLM that directional drilling of a particular well or wells would be technically or economically 

infeasible.

Comment: One development design that is not considered an alternative is what I call cluster 

development. This involves creating phased development areas that are prioritized according to the 

resources available and the habitat affected. There would be, for example, eight phases overlaying the 

county in the highest potential development areas. Three of these phases are already occupied and under 

intense development. Within those phases minerals would be explored through cluster developments that 

would concentrate intense drilling technologies and densities to a small footprint allowing a larger buffer 

zone around it. Several clusters within a phase are developed at one time. However, it is limited to allow 

for, “room to roam” between the clusters. No other clusters would be allowed to be developed until the 

previous clusters were being reclaimed. The overall development of these clusters within the phases 

would move from south to north progressively. This would essentially allow for reclaimed areas to 

become ‘rested’ successfully by decreasing the amount of activity around those reclaimed areas. The 

eight phase areas would also open and close from south to north as well. In a sense this would look like a 

gradual progression, a march of lights from the south to the north that would leave a wake of reclaimed 

pads that would look like a tilled up field. Instead of widespread impacts, the intensity would be 

contained and allow for reclamation efforts and mitigation attempts to be successful instead of just being 

acts of good faith. The cluster development sites would have the directional reach for a circumference of 

almost a mile around under the surface, looking like an underground cone leading up to the surface point. 

Between these surface points of the cluster sites there could be unoccupied corridors of approximately 

two miles. We have the technology to do this and if it isn’t applicable here in our area when these 

Pinedale RMP A27-343 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

companies are making record profits, then I ask, “where?” This would reduce the amount of roads 

needed, allow for wildlife, and slow the rate at which pollutants would be released.

Response: While it is not called clusters or clustered development, Alternatives 3 and 4 do establish 

concentrated development areas and also do establish areas not available for oil and gas leasing or for 

surface occupancy for oil and gas development. The unavailable areas would provide respite areas for 

wildlife and for offsite wildlife habitat augmentation projects. It is not possible to cluster development 

until exploration has confirmed the characteristics and extent of the underground resource. 

Comment: Item: Table 2-1, Page 2-2, Section 2.2.1, Public Comments and Their Treatment in the Draft 

EIS “Phased development strategies are included in Alternatives 3 and 4. The planning area would be 

divided into three or four areas (depending on alternative) for management of oil and gas leasing and 

development. Different levels of development would be allowed within each area, which would allow for 

phased development of the planning area.” Comment: A definition of phased development needs to be 

specifically included in the RMP. Phased development can include a number of scenarios. Does phased 

development mean the move from NSO to “intensively developed” after wells are completed? It appears 

incorrect to say that different levels of development are/will be allowed in minimally developed areas vs. 

intensively developed areas

Response: This table is meant to be a short summary of public concerns and how they are treated in the 

draft EIS. Individuals should refer to the chapters in the document for more discussion. Discussion of 

how the NSO and unavailable areas provide for phasing development has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: 3) Cluster oil and gas development in concentrated areas and fully reclaim them before 

developing any other gas fields such as new CBM wells in the foothills of the Wyoming Range

Response: It is not possible to cluster development until exploration has confirmed the characteristics and 

extent of the underground resource.

Comment: 3) Cluster energy development in concentrated areas and fully reclaim them before 

proceeding with development of other gas fields.

Response: It is not possible to cluster development until exploration has confirmed the characteristics and 

extent of the underground resource.

Comment: I propose the Record of Decision be void of the following concepts: 

1. Seasonal drilling stipulations. I support the development of new technologies and best management 

practices that protect wildlife without restrictive seasonal stipulations. 

2. Mandated directional drilling and clustered development in an RMP. Such stipulations are more 

appropriate in subsequent project level NEPA processes.

Response: BLM is required to manage the federal lands and mineral estates under its jurisdiction for 

multiple use. This draft EIS does address reduced restrictions in the areas analyzed as available for 

intensive oil and gas development. Development rates and infrastructure scenarios, such as clustering 

wells, are project-level issues that can be addressed through project-level EISs. More detailed site-specific 

analysis does occur through project-level analysis documents, i.e., EAs and EISs.

Comment: Because directional drilling and centralized facilities with related technologies and 

improvements allow fewer surface locations and more efficient operations, along with advanced reservoir 

A27-344 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

engineering technologies and instrumentation that are available to better define fluids production 

characters/parameters from wells/reservoirs, including improved equipment applications, the BLM should 

strictly limit surface locations to the minimum number each with maximum wells drilled directionally; 

with well depths and geological structures like Jonah and Pinedale Anticline, wells can easily be kicked 

1/2 to 3/4 mile (or more) horizontally from surface locations. Also for this reason, buffer zones of 1-mile 

(or more) should be required near townsites, residential properties/sub-divisions , wherein no drilling 

production activity on the surface should occur.

Response: Directional drilling and centralized facilities are certainly best management practices to be 

used where feasible. Directional drilling is being used on the Pinedale Anticline with lateral reaches out to 

about 1⁄2 mile. Directional drilling, mat pads, and other surface disturbance and human presence reduction 

measures are being used in the Jonah Field. Where feasible, horizontal drilling is being used in portions of 

the La Barge Platform. The viable lateral (horizontal) distance for directional drilling varies with the 

depth to the productive/target formation(s). That is, the shallower the formation, the shorter the 

lateral/horizontal distance. Establishing a 1-mile buffer around townsites, subdivisions, etc., in many 

instances is beyond BLM’s jurisdiction. In many cases the lands and mineral estate within the 1-mile 

buffer are state or privately owned. Where the federal mineral estate does occur within the suggested 

buffer, much of it is already leased and the leaseholder has rights to develop and produce the minerals.

Comment: It is generally the rapid changes in population in the initial years following the opening of an 

area for oil and gas development that results in the dissatisfaction often noted in boom towns (Smith et. al 

2001, Brown et. al 2005, Goldsmith 1992, Guilliford 1989, Merrifield 1984, Kittredge 1987, Kelly 1980). 

Mitigating these impacts is difficult, as the appropriate level of increased capacity for services is difficult 

to determine since the increased demand is likely to be temporary when development is rapid (Merrifield 

1984). One way for the residents of the Pinedale area to gain some control over these impacts is if the 

BLM implements a phased leasing or development that controls the scale and pace at which drilling 

occurs.

Response: The RMP does identify areas under the various alternatives that would be unavailable for 

leasing, which would constitute a form of phased leasing.

Comment: PAGE: 4.47, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise discussion of 

directional drilling for accuracy. EXPLANATION: RMP fails to address feasibility and lack of feasibility 

for directional drilling and the unavailability of large blocks of land classified as NSO.

Response: See the directional drilling discussion on pages 4-49 and 4-71 of the draft EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 4-49, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE to address that a 

failed directional well can preclude recovery. EXPLANATION: Failed directional drilling can also 

preclude recovery of the targeted area.

Response: This is implied in “diminished well production.”

Comment: The DEIS correctly recognizes that directional drilling can reduce impacts to surface 

resources, such as vegetation, soil, livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and visual and recreational values. 

Also, centralizing surface locations may reduce fragmentation of wildlife habitat and disturbance of 

surface vegetation and soils. Fewer miles of roads and pipelines may be necessary; and in some cases, 

facilities such as reserve pits have been shared among multiple well pads. However, directional drilling 

can substantially increase the costs required to develop wells due to increased drilling time, sticking of 

casing at the bends in the well-bore, and loss of a percentage of wells (when sticking or other drilling 

problems cannot be remedied). In addition, seasonal restrictions may be a deterrent to or may completely 

Pinedale RMP A27-345 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

preclude directional drilling in cases where drilling one or more directional wells from a single pad would 

take longer than the seasonal drilling window allows. Accordingly, rather than merely allowing multiple 

wells from a single pad, it would be preferable that BLM actively support such development by allowing 

drilling without seasonal restrictions, by placing more high potential areas in the intensively developed 

category, and instituting other incentives.

Response: The RMP (Alternatives 2 and 4) does address options for reducing seasonal restrictions for 

surface disturbing activities. See action item c under Objective 1 on pages 2-82 and 2-120 of the draft 

EIS. 

Comment: Recommendation 5: The management alternatives presented in the Draft RMP are not 

balanced and should be changed to remove the bias toward oil and gas extraction. Given the substantial 

negative impacts already affecting and likely to continue affecting wildlife and sage steppe habitat the 

final alternative must, at a minimum, ensure more protection of natural resources. With BLM having 

already leased over 70% of the resource area and permitted several large gas fields -including new infill 

expansions, more compromise is inappropriate. Instead, a more conservative and restrictive approach is 

needed. The Pinedale RMP should be amended to incorporate a system for clustered and phased 

development allowing for added protection for habitat and wildlife by geographically clustering 

development and phasing production and restoration over a longer period of time.

Response: The draft EIS/RMP meets the requirement to address a reasonable range of alternatives. As 

stated in Table 2-1 on page 2-2 of the draft EIS, “Phased development strategies are included in 

Alternatives 3 and 4.” The bulk of the oil and gas development anticipated over the life of the plan would 

occur or in essence be geographically clustered in the Jonah Field, on the Pinedale Anticline, or in the Big 

Piney-La Barge area. The implementation period for the development of a given field would be addressed 

in project-level NEPA documentation. 

Comment: We urge BLM to develop a plan that includes paced development at a much slower pace than 

the current frantic pace of intense development. Such a plan should not allow major new gas fields to be 

developed until existing and/or expending fields have been fully completed. BLM should require 

clustering of new wells, the use of directional drilling, the centralizing of facilities (including liquid 

gathering facilities), use of remote monitoring, use of best and cleanest technology available (including 

Tier 2 (or better) drilling rigs), remote monitoring, and buried lines, to minimize the footprint and other 

impacts to air, water, wildlife, habitat, and other resources.

Response: As stated in Table 2-1 on page 2-2 of the draft EIS, “Phased development strategies are 

included in Alternatives 3 and 4.” Directional drilling/clustered development (i.e., multiple wells from a 

single pad, centralized production facilities, etc.) are some of the best management practices listed in 

Appendix 5 of the draft EIS/RMP to be utilized when and where appropriate. They are not appropriate or 

necessary everywhere or all the time; therefore, it would be inappropriate to mandate their use. An 

example where such BMPs would not be appropriate would be an exploratory well in areas with minimal 

resource concerns and no other well pads or production facilities within a reasonable distance. BMPs, 

such as directional drilling and “clustered” development would be included in project-level NEPA 

documents.

Comment: In its discussion of directional drilling on page 4-47, the BLM should also discuss 

information regarding limitations on the BLM’s ability to mandate directional drilling. The IBLA has 

expressly determined that the BLM does not have the authority to require the movement of proposed 

operations more than 200 meters, unless a nondiscretionary statute is implicated. See Colorado Envtl. 

Coal., et al., 169 IBLA 137, 144 (2006) (holding that BLM cannot require relocation of a proposed well 

by 200 meters); see also 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2 (2006). The BLM properly notes that directional drilling 

A27-346 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

increases costs and results in lost resources when casing cannot be brought to the bottom of the hole. See 

RMP DEIS, pg 4-49. The BLM should also note that directional drilling can lead to increased air 

emissions by as much as 20% as compared to vertical drilling given the increased drilling times and load 

factors on drilling rig engines. See, e.g., JIDP ROD, pg. 13.

Response: The air quality analysis acknowledges that directional drilling can increase drill rig emissions. 

Based on the following documentation from the Wyoming State Director Review (SDR) of a Yates 

request to overturn a field office decision, BLM can require that projects relocate more than 200 meters. 

The SDR states, “Through the rulemaking process, it has been determined BLM can require the 

movement of oil and gas operations of less than 200 meters, and restrict activities for less than 60 days 

and be consistent with lease rights, no matter when the lease was issued.” These regulations are codified 

at 43 CFR 3101.1-2, Surface Use Rights, and were developed to resolve uncertainty concerning the 

Bureau’s authority within the terms and conditions of the standard lease form to control site-specific 

environmental impacts [53 FR 17341]. However, as the preamble to the regulations notes: “authority of 

the Bureau to prescribe ‘reasonable’ but more stringent protection measures are not affected by the final 

rulemaking” [53 FR 17341] and further states, “IM 92-67 explains that any relocation greater than 200 

meters, timing restrictions greater than 60 days, or mitigation that would render a proposed operation 

uneconomic or is technically unfeasible is not considered to be consistent with a lessee’s rights and 

cannot be required absent a lease stipulation, unless it is determined that such mitigation is required to 

prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands or resources. Mitigation required to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation under FLPMA is within the terms of the lease, since all leases are 

subject to applicable laws and regulations.”

Geology, Tectonics, Fracing, Geophysical Operations 

Comment: Geoseismic operations should have stipulations placed on timing. This timing adherence 

should also include hunting seasons, as geoseismic activity is highly intrusive.

Response: All geophysical projects require NEPA analysis, which will develop project-specific 

mitigation requirements. All four alternatives in the draft EIS place limitations on geophysical operations. 

Alternative 1 states, “All acreage in the planning area would be subject to various appropriate 

limitations...” Alternatives 3 and 4 state, “Geophysical projects would be designed and implemented to 

minimize impacts to wildlife habitats.” Based on the project-specific NEPA analysis “appropriate 

limitations” and “minimize impacts to wildlife habitats” can certainly include the implementation of 

seasonal restrictions. To provide clarification, the text in the final EIS has been revised to state: 

“Geophysical activities would be designed and implemented to minimize impacts to wildlife habitats 

through means such as the imposition of surface-use, seasonal, and/or other appropriate mitigation 

developed through project-specific NEPA analysis.”

Comment: Section 3.7.2 structure and tectonics does not expand upon the impacts of cracking and 

chemical injection in and around fault zones which may increase geologic earthquake activity due to the 

reduction of friction along fault zones from these chemicals and well activities.

Response: The referenced section is in Chapter 3, the Affected Environment, and consequently would not 

contain any discussion about impact. Concerning oil and gas development inducing earthquakes, there is 

one documented case in Colorado where water injection under extremely high pressure contributed to an 

earthquake. There are no documented cases of fraccing operations causing earthquakes. There have been 

thousands of frac jobs performed within the Jonah Field, Pinedale Anticline, and Big Piney-La Barge area 

with no documented earthquakes.

Comment: I therefore strongly oppose this Alternative and support instead Alternative 3 with the 

following revision included in its final form: • Cleaner drilling techniques must be mandated, along with 

Pinedale RMP A27-347 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

other environmentally sound practices such as employee busing, directional drilling, disclosure of 

substances used in fracing fluids and the usage of off-shore fracing compounds which are less detrimental 

to soil and groundwater. These techniques must be used exclusively, even if they are more expensive, and 

not only used as bargaining chips for Operators to waive drilling restrictions and/or stipulations.

Response: These suggestions do not constitute a planning-level decision, but certainly could be initiated 

and implemented through project-level EAs or EISs. BLM is required to adhere to the Clean Air Act, but 

does not have the regulatory authority to mandate permittees, leaseholders, ROW holders, or project 

proponent adherence. That regulatory authority resides with the EPA and Wyoming DEQ. 

Comment: the RMP leaves open the possibility of removing NSO stipulations and/or making 

Unavailable Areas available for leasing if development on “adjacent state or private mineral estate is 

determined to be draining federal oil and/or gas resources to the extent that drilling on off-setting federal 

well(s) is needed to address the drainage situation.” (pages 2-48 and 2-49). This exception language is 

unprecedented, not necessary and should be removed from the Final RMP. 

The gas reservoirs in this area are “tight sands,” characterized by enclosed formations that require 

fracturing in order to be economically producible. See, e.g., Jonah Infill Project Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, January 2006, page 67. In light of the challenges inherent in simply accessing 

sufficient areas of these reservoirs to make them economically worthwhile to drill (which has also been 

the justification for reduced well-spacing requirements), the risk of drainage from adjacent mineral estate 

occurring, let alone reaching a level requiring an off-setting well, is extremely low. 

Further, if there is a concern with the potential for drainage, then the BLM should seek to form units to 

permit development of resources and allocation of proceeds. As stated in BLM’s handbook on unitization, 

the purposes of unitization is to “pool mineral interest ownership in an entire geologic structure or area” 

so that “exploration, development, and production can proceed in the most efficient and economical 

manner.” (H-3180-1, page 2-10). Units are established based on “structural, stratigraphic, or other 

limiting geologic parameters.” Id. Units can include non-federal lands. (43 C.F.R. § 3181.4). In addition, 

participating areas in units can be limited based on those initially producing and then expanded if needed 

to include additional areas. (H-3180-1, pages 2-12 through 2-16). 

Having the Pinedale RMP take this unitization approach to address drainage concerns would be consistent 

with BLM policy and decisions elsewhere. BLM resource management plans have required formation of 

units as a way to limit surface impacts of development. See, e.g., Record of Decision for Amendment to 

the RMP for Otero and Sierra Counties, New Mexico, (ROD -available on-line at 

http://www.nm.blm.gov/lcfo/white_sands_rmpa_eis/docs/PRINTABLEROD-LCFO-FINAL_text.pdf ); 

Draft RMP for Little Snake Resource Area, Colorado (available on-line at: 

http://www.co.blm.gov/lsra/rmp/index.htm). If BLM has sincere concerns about the risks to federal 

minerals and these concerns can be validated based on the geology of certain areas, then the RMP can 

include the Large Block NSO Areas in units and work with leaseholders, including those on adjacent nonfederal lands, to require or encourage participation in units and appropriately define participating areas, as 

well as identifying conditions for revision of those areas based on risks of drainage. Similarly, the RMP 

could provide for the Unavailable Areas to be added to units if a scientifically supported assessment 

shows that there is a risk of drainage and no other way to address it. 

Recommendation: The Large Block NSO Areas and the Unavailable Areas were identified to meet 

important needs for wildlife and other users of these public lands. Providing for an exception to both the 

NSO and the Unavailable classification based on a potential for drainage cannot be supported by the 

geology of this area, is inconsistent with BLM’s approach/decisions elsewhere, and severely undermines 

the purpose of identifying these areas for more protective management. To the extent that the BLM 

A27-348 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

believes that there is a risk, then the agency must provide a justification, based on reviewable, high 

quality data, to show that there is such a risk. For those areas where this “burden of proof” can be met, the 

RMP should provide for formation of units and delineate participating areas that can be expanded to 

include Large Block NSO. With respect to the Unavailable Areas, an even higher burden of proof must be 

met. The RMP can provide for Unavailable Areas to be added to units if a scientifically supported 

assessment shows that there is a risk of drainage and no other way to address it.

Response: Not all formations in the planning area exhibit the tight sand characteristics exhibited in the 

Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline. For example, the Madison Formation in the Riley Ridge Project Area 

is being produced for one well per section. BLM does have the authority to form federal units. It does not 

have the authority to force holders of state or private leases to join a federal unit. Consequently, the 

drainage language is appropriate. 

Comment: PAGE: 4.47, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise Map 4-1 to reflect 

geology rather than Highway 191. EXPLANATION: Map 4-1 identifies the land east of Highway 191 as 

low potential and the land west of Highway 191 as high potential. Highway is not a geological or mineral 

potential guide.

Response: Map 4-1 of the draft EIS does not depict Highway 191 as any kind of a boundary. The 

highways, as well as the towns, are only shown as points of reference. No change it needed.

Comment: PAGE: 4-216 SECTION: 4.18.3 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Alt. 4 Add vibroseis to list of 

geophysical exploration techniques

Response: Vibroseis is inclusive in the statement: “Impact from OHV use would be similar to those 

described in Alternative 3.”

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-63: “Surface disturbance would be restricted on all slopes greater 

than 25% (124,030 acres) and would be prohibited on sensitive soils with slopes with inclines greater than 

8%. The impacts on leasable minerals development from the 25% slope restriction would be the same as 

those described in the soils and watershed impact discussion under Alternative 1. As with slopes greater 

than 25%, mineral development on sensitive soils with slopes greater than 8% would necessitate the use 

of offsite development techniques. Fluid mineral resources in areas beyond the technical and economic 

capabilities of the offsite methods would be considered unrecoverable. The Milleson Draw, Blue Rim, 

and Long Island Watershed areas have very low to low CBNG development potential and low to 

moderate non-CBNG development potential. Red Canyon would be rated very low for CBNG 

development potential and moderate for non-CBNG development potential. Geophysical operators would 

be restricted to non vehicle-based methods on slopes greater than 25% and on slopes greater than 15% 

where sensitive soils occur.” Recommendations:Use 2000 PAPA ROD percentage numbers and 

specifically identify “sensitive soils”.

Response: The 2000 PAPA ROD only applies to the Pinedale Anticline project area, while the discussion 

on page 4-63 of the draft EIS applies to the entire field office; hence, the PAPA ROD acreage would not 

be appropriate. BLM has initiated a detailed soils survey of the planning area. Once that survey is 

completed in 2008 or 2009, maps showing specific sensitive areas could be developed. At the present 

time, sensitive soil determinations would be made on site-specific predisturbance onsite visits. 

Comment: It may be possible through such methods as horizontal drilling for industry to develop 

resources under Large Block NSO Areas. However, prior to drilling, it may be necessary to conduct 

geophysical exploration over such leases, and these operations have to be conducted on the surface above 

the leases. Therefore, NSO stipulations should allow geophysical operations in these multi-use Large 

Pinedale RMP A27-349 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Block NSO Areas. Geophysical operations have a short-lived impact on the environment, and should be 

allowed to be conducted in any multi-use area under BLM jurisdiction. Geophysical data can be 

invaluable in evaluating the potential for new techniques which can minimize surface disturbance in a 

given area. 

Response: Page 2-122 in the draft EIS states: “Geophysical projects, including projects proposed in areas 

with an NSO restriction, would be analyzed and mitigation would be developed on a case-by-case basis.”

Comment: PAGE: 4-48, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Restrictions that cause 

increased well development costs, or that render oil and gas resources unavailable or unrecoverable, can 

also impact geophysical exploration. EXPLANATION: Incorrectly assumes direct cause and effect 

relationship, when this omits standard by time.

Response: Text has been changed in the final EIS to the following: “Seasonal and surface use restrictions 

that cause increased well development costs, or that render oil and gas resources unavailable or 

unrecoverable, can also impact geophysical exploration.”

Comment: PAGE: 4-48, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE to address other 

exploration techniques EXPLANATION: Also 1 wildcat well is not the same as geophysical exploration. 

This paragraph fails to reflect modern geophysical techniques by assuming that exploratory wells are 

necessary for geophysical work.

Response: The listed techniques are not intended to be all inclusive but rather to provide an example, 

which the list does.

Water Disposal Pits, Water Evaporation Pits, Surface Discharge 

Comment: The DRMP does not have clear definitions of, nor does it even define water disposal pits, 

water evaporation pits and cuttings/reserve pits. This needs to be clarified in the FRMP so that a clear 

distinction is made between surface evaporation pits and surface discharge. Specifically, the 7 items on 

page 2-53, listed below, need to be expanded and clarified: 

h. Proposals for water disposal pits would be considered on a case-by-case basis and would be subject to 

the following requirements: 

1. Pits would meet the requirements of Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7, the Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Commission, and the WDEQ. 

2. Disposal pits would be placed outside crucial wildlife habitats. 

3. Disposal pits would be restricted to VRM Class IV areas. 

4. Disposal pits would be bonded to an amount determined by an Authorized Officer. 

5. The discharge flow would be matched to hydrological capability of the receiving drainage so that 

erosion does not result. 

6. The discharge flow would be constant rather than in pulses. 

7. The discharge would have automatic monitors and shut-offs in the event that the discharge would 

exceed the drainage flow rate or the water quality standard.

A27-350 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: Definitions of water disposal pits, water evaporation pits, and surface discharge have been 

added to the glossary in the final EIS. The commenter did not explain why the seven items need to be 

expanded and clarified. BLM believes the current management actions are appropriate.

Comment: Although the BLM would prohibit “water disposal pits” in the planning area under 

Alternative 4, see RMP DEIS, pgs. 2-118, 2-120 - 122, the BLM does not define the phrase. Is the BLM 

attempting to prohibit reserve and completion pits which are a normal and integral part of oil and gas 

development? The BLM cannot restrict the use of reserve and completion pits without unduly restricting 

operations. Further, the BLM should not attempt to make site-specific decisions in the RMP.

Response: The term water disposal pit has been added to the final EIS. It was not meant to include 

reserve or completion pits. The management actions proposed in the alternatives are appropriate for the 

land use planning level. The document says that BMPs would be applied to protect resources, not that 

BMPs would be required regardless of their usefulness. BMPs by their nature are analyzed and applied on 

a site-specific basis. Language regarding water disposal pits has been revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: In order to continue protecting the environment while developing energy, several definitions 

mush be defined: One area of the RMP that must be clarified is the definitions of issues related to water 

disposal and water evaporation pits. It is important to make a distinction between surface pits and surface 

discharge options. The BLM also needs to explain the difference between temporary and permanent pits. 

These definitions will help ensure that energy development can occur in an environmentally respectful 

manner.

Response: Definitions for water disposal pits, water evaporation pits, and surface discharge, temporary 

pits have been added to the glossary in the final EIS.

Comment: The RMP does not clearly define issues related to the disposal of water or evaporation pits.

Response: Additional clarification has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: One area of the RMP that must be clarified is the definitions of issues related to water 

disposal and water evaporation pits. It is important to make a distinction between surface pits and surface 

discharge options. The BLM also needs to explain the difference between temporary and permanent pits.

Response: Definitions for water disposal pits, water evaporation pits, surface discharge, temporary pits, 

and permanent pits have been added to the glossary in the final EIS.

Comment: Please clarify the definitions regarding water disposal and water evaporation ponds.

Response: Definitions for water disposal pits, water evaporation pits, surface discharge, temporary pits, 

and permanent pits have been added to the glossary in the final EIS.

Comment: The RMP does not clearly define issues related to the disposal of water or evaporation pits.

Response: Additional clarification has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-8 CHANGE: EVAPORATION POND – An industrial containment area designed 

to allow [briny](STRIKEOUT) produced water to evaporate by [using solar energy and 

wind](STRIKEOUT) utilizing natural evaporative processes. EXPLANATION: The definition should 

conform to the Draft Interstate Oil and Gas Commission study funded by U.S. Department of Energy, 

Pinedale RMP A27-351 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Guide to Practical Management of Produced Water from Onshore Oil and Gas Operations in the United 

States, Sec. 4.5.1.

Response: For the purposes of the RMP, BLM feels the definition is satisfactory.

Comment: Require operators to post bonds sufficient for full remediation of any potential hazardous 

material release associated with proposed transport and uses of chemicals for drilling, completion, 

stimulation, refinement, and other production operations. This must include funding for full remediation 

of contaminated ground waters, surface waters and soils. “Bonding requirements for operators of sites that 

manage oil and E&P [exploration and production] waste are generally inadequate to cover costs of 

surface remediation work with DEQ to ensure adequate bonds for facilities (including produced water 

storage and treatment facilities) located off BLM lands.” [28] at 15. The same is true of most oil and gas 

operations in the PRA. 

Where remediation would require the extraction of contaminated ground waters (or ex-traction of 

uncontaminated waters to regulate plume movement), require full mitigation of water losses, including 

possible surface water depletions associated with reduced discharge of ground waters into surface waters. 

Require contaminated materials to be placed on fully-lined sites (with best available liners) for 

remediation, treatment, or storage awaiting transport to a disposal facility. Prohibit EnCana and other 

operators from storing contaminated materials on bare ground on assumption that “[l]eaching 

hydrocarbons through the pile to the ground below would take too much time” to contaminate underlying 

soils and ground water [44]. Require such contaminated deposits to be fully covered to prevent dispersal 

by wind and rain. 

After a containment pit (i.e., reserve pit, waste pit, evaporation pond, or other structure designed to 

contain fluids that may be potentially hazardous) is removed, the RMP should require that soils under the 

pit location be promptly tested for contaminants, including but not limited to benzene, PAHs, MTBE, 

salts, heavy metals. (e.g., chromium), NORM, and other contaminants that may have been held in the pit. 

The company that constructed and managed the pit shall pay for the testing costs though BLM shall 

administer the tests with an independent testing company. If tests reveal soils or waters under the pit 

location have contaminants, all contaminates soils or waters shall be excavated and transported to a 

permitted hazardous materials disposal facility, also at the pit manager’s expense.

Response: Bonding is required under federal regulation. BLM has the authority to adjust bond levels. An 

RMP decision is not needed. These are the type of considerations that typically could be addressed and 

potentially implemented in project-level NEPA documents. The RMP does provide the framework for 

these types of mitigations through the performance-based mitigation. Projects would be addressed on a 

site-specific, case-by-case basis. Regulation requires remediation to be successful.

Well Production, Well Spacing, Mineral Recovery, General Drilling Issues 

Comment: How long will these wells produce, 20 to 30 years? Then what? 

Response: Most gas wells in the planning area have an anticipated productive life of 30–50 years. When 

a well is no longer productive, facilities are removed and the site undergoes final reclamation.

Comment: According to new estimates, the Pinedale BLM contains the second largest natural gas field in 

the entire nation.

Response: DOE’s Energy Information Administration’s “U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas 

Liquid Reserves 2005 Annual Report” puts Pinedale number 2, Jonah number 6 and Fogarty Creek (Riley 

A27-352 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Ridge) number 19 in the top 100 fields in the United States ranked by proved gas reserves. 

(http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/curre

nt/pdf/appb.pdf).

Comment: Information on mineral resource areas needs to be updated based on new findings and current 

field production and well results. Lack of information on mineral resources should require that additional 

analyses be conducted. For example, the total recoverable estimate in the DRMP is 19 TCF in Alternative 

4, yet this is less than the current reasonable foreseeable development estimate of 20 - 25 TCF for the 

Pinedale Anticline alone. Mineral resource data contained in the DRMP/EIS must be accurate and 

complete. 

Response: The information in the draft EIS/RMP is based on the best available data and level of 

knowledge at the time the analysis was conducted. With rapidly changing levels of knowledge concerning 

oil and gas resources within the planning area and particularly in the Jonah Field and on the Pinedale 

Anticline, it is neither reasonable, practical, nor prudent to re-initiate the analysis each time a new piece 

of information becomes available. If BLM were to re-initiate at each new piece of information, the RMP 

would likely never be completed. The final EIS has updated the volume of projected recoverable natural 

gas. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-48 SECTION: 2.5.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: What is the 

basis for 1 well per 160 acres as the standard for intensive development? 

Response: The 160-acre conversion trigger is based on the WGFD report Minimum Programmatic 

Standards Recommended by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to Sustain Important Wildlife 

Habitats Affected by Oil and Gas Development (Steve Tessman, et. al., May 24, 2004) which states that 

habitat effectiveness significantly degrades when well densities exceed four wells per square mile. 

Bottom-hole spacing was used as the metric because the disruptive activity associated with developing 

wells is very similar whether they are multiple wells on a pad or individual wells on tighter surface 

spacing. Sawyer’s study shows that the human activity is as much or more of an impact than the actual 

loss of habitat. Additional clarification has been incorporated into the final EIS.

Comment: -To minimize losses of shallow-aquifer porosity, infiltration and carrying capacity, require 

road and well pad construction to be minimized. Operators should be required use the shortest roads and 

fewest well pads feasible, and to make well pads as small as practicable. Every square yard of surface 

disturbance should have to. be justified. Just because companies like to use 3-5 acre well pads does not 

mean BLM should allow so much surface disturbance. The RMP should also require the use of nonprismed roads where practicable (e.g., surface mats that allow truck access without bulldozing or 

compressing soils).

Response: Operators are already required to use the smallest pads and fewest roads necessary for their 

operations. Justifying every square yard disturbed is not practical or reasonable; however, the RMP 

certainly encourages all surface disturbing activities to achieve the smallest footprint necessary.

Comment: As a condition of APD approval, the RMP should require full disclosure of types and 

quantities of chemicals used for drilling, completion and stimulation operations. If BLM feels public 

disclosure is not allowed, the RMP should require disclosure to BLM. The RMP should also require 

operators to report the types and quantities of drilling, completion and stimulation chemicals that remain 

in ground after operations are completed.

Pinedale RMP A27-353 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

Response: These are issues that are more appropriate for project-level and/or site-specific planning. The 

Pinedale Field Office does require operators to have material data sheets on locations for all chemicals 

used. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-122, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: 1. Development on adjacent state or private 

mineral estate developed by a federal lessee is determined to be draining federal oil and/or gas resources 

to the extent that drilling a well from the surface of the lease is required to address the drainage situation. 

EXPLANATION: Drainage rules only apply to federal lessees. 

Response: You are correct; however, if BLM determines a private or state well is draining federal 

reserves underlying any existing federal lease, BLM can require the federal leaseholder to drill off-setting 

wells. If the federal minerals being drained are not leased, BLM can choose to offer the acreage being 

drained for lease.

Comment: PAGE: 2-118, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete: [I. No new centralized compression 

facilities would be permitted in the Wind River Front Management Area (approximately 201,240 acres) 

(Map 2-33). Wellhead compression for individual wells would be considered on a case-by-case basis.] 

(strikeout), EXPLANATION: Unreasonably limits development and interferes with well development, 

which BLM cannot do.

Response: BLM disagrees and feels the referenced restriction is totally within its jurisdiction and is 

necessary to maintain wildlife, VRM, and recreational values in the Wind River Front Management Area. 

BLM acknowledges it cannot prohibit holders of existing valid leases from exercising their legal rights. 

Comment: The BLM has data that would allow the agency to calculate reasonably foreseeable 

development beyond 2030. Indeed, the PAPA Draft SEIS includes projections of gas field development 

through 2065. See, e.g., PAPA DSEIS at 4-27 (Table 4.3-11). And BLM estimates the life of the Jonah 

Infill Project to be 63 to 105 years. See Jonah Infill FEIS, Executive Summary, page 1. It is reasonable to 

expect far more than 10,000 wells will have been drilled in the PRA by 2065. Since current leases and 

leases issued under the new RMP will lead to development out to 2065, the BLM should be projecting 

cumulative impacts out to that year where possible. Each well drilled in the PRA can contribute to ground 

water and surface water degradation, so the cumulative impacts of all wells - and associated well pads, 

pipelines, roads, support facilities, and produced water must be fully evaluated by the BLM. The RMP 

DEIS does not do this. Moreover, even with the limited projections of conventional well development 

through 2020, the RMP DEIS does not analyze the potential cumulative impacts to water resources from 

this massive development.

Response: The supplemental EIS projects a production life for the PAPA to 2065. It does project 

development occurring until that date. The RMP is designed for a lifespan until 2020.

Comment: The assumptions regarding the total number, type and status of future oil and gas wells should 

be clarified. The information presented regarding future oil and gas development, which is a central issue 

for the RMP, is unclear and confusing. For example, the narrative in Section 4 indicates a total of 2,979 

existing wells, presumably as of the end of 2005. What is unclear is to the derivation of this number, how 

it relates to the numbers shown in Appendix 26, particularly Table A26-2 and the cumulative 

development on page 3-40, and whether these all are currently producing or if they include P&A? Also, 

what is the distribution of the wells by mineral estate ownership (federal, state, and private)? Please 

provide an explanation or the context for that total because it relates to assessment of impacts for the 

current time forward. Other information requiring clarification includes references in the document to the 

number of future wells to be drilled. For example, Table 2-25 indicates a total of 7,192 wells to be drilled 

on federal mineral estate. The same number appears in Table 4-2. However, the narrative for Alternative 

A27-354 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

1 (pg. 4-52) cites 7,927 wells on federal minerals. Another example is the 7,804 federal wells for 

Alternative 2 in Table 4-2 and the 8,465 federal wells Why the difference and which is correct? 

Table A26-2 provides information regarding the anticipated distribution of federal versus the combined 

number state and private wells, as well as the assumed success rate for future wells, though not broken 

down by well type (CBNG, Anticline, Jonah, other). The data in Table A26-2 suggests that the number of 

producing federal wells, by alternative, would be 6,325, 6,748, 5,106 and 6,336 wells, respectively. Since 

the numbers of federal wells affect projected tax revenues, they should be explicitly reported in Section 2 

or 4. The projected drilling rates in Table A26-2 appear inconsistent with the average annual numbers of 

wells drilled described in Table 4-13. The values in Table 4-13 appear to reflect the number drilled and 

completed from 2001 through 2020, not 2006 to 2020. Is that correct? Should the average numbers of 

wells and job reported in Table 4-13 reflect the assumed rates for 2007 going forward, not the entire 2001 

to 2020 time horizon? Using averages over the entire time horizon understates the potential impacts going 

forward since historical drilling rates have been lower than the projected average annual rates. 

Finally, we are of the understanding that the RMP at least implicitly reflects the drilling assumptions 

established for the Jonah Infill and Pinedale Anticline projects. If that is true the development rates in 

Table A26-2 appear inconsistent with that premise as the number of wells shown being drilled between 

2007 and 2011 in the RMP is less than the number of wells shown in the two EISs. Furthermore, are the 

assumed employment effects per well in Table A26-1 consistent with the corresponding assumptions in 

two project-specific EISs? If not, please explain the differences. This topic arises because Table 4.3-6 of 

the Pinedale Anticline SEIS indicates a total of 11,182 jobs in 2009 for just 236 Anticline wells, which 

seems incongruous with the average numbers of jobs for the RMP alternatives shown in Table 4-13 of the 

RMP/EIS.

Response: The 2,969 wells in 2006 as shown on page 4-113 of the draft EIS is inclusive of the producing 

wells that existed at the end of 2001 and those wells developed from 2001 to 2006. Table A26-2 does not 

include the wells the existed in 2001 and only projects the number of wells anticipated between 2001 and 

2020. Based on WOGCC databases, about 1,750 producing wells existed at the end of 2001 and 925 

producing wells were developed between 2001 and 2006. Table A26-2 has been revised to show that 925 

well were developed from 2001 through 2005. Projections for years 2006–2020 have also been revised. 

Tables 4-13 and A10-1 have the correct projections. The text has been corrected in the final EIS. 

It needs to be reiterated that the projected well numbers are projections based on a number of 

assumptions. The actual number of wells may vary from the projection. It is the actual number of wells 

developed that will ultimately become part of the tax bases. BLM feels that Appendix 26 is the 

appropriate place for these projections. Tables 4-13 and A26-2 of the draft EIS have been correlated to 

agree. As stated above, the projected wells numbers are BLM’s best estimate of what may occur. They are 

not an implicit determination of what will actually occur. 

Comment: Page 4-4 “Surface disturbance projections for leaseable minerals development assume one 

well per well pad with a support road and pipeline, for a disturbance projection of 7.1 acres. For each 

additional well added to a well pad, the total (planning area–wide) surface disturbance projection would 

decrease by almost 6 acres (i.e., a pad with two wells, support road, and pipeline would have a projected 

disturbance of 8.4 acres, whereas two individual pads with a single well, road, and pipeline would disturb 

14.2 acres). With four wells on a pad, the total projected disturbance would be decreased by 18 acres (i.e., 

a pad with four wells, support road, and pipeline would have a projected disturbance of 10.4 acres, 

whereas four individual pads with a single well, road, and pipeline would disturb 28.4 acres). One 

hundred pads with four wells each and support roads and pipelines would disturb 1,040 acres, whereas 

400 individual wells with a single well, road, and pipeline would disturb 2,840 acres.” Comment: These 

assumptions are greater than those used by operators in the greater La Barge Area development. BLM 

Pinedale RMP A27-355 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

must acknowledge that experience has shown that surface disturbance to date is less than predicted and 

future surface disturbances will be reduced even further. Estimates of surface disturbance ranged from 7 

acres/well in 1984 to 3+ acres per well in the RMP and 1994 TTHB EA and are expected to average 1 

acre/well for future development. Page 4-52 “Contributing segments of the Lander Trail and Sublette 

Cutoff Trail would be encumbered by a CSU stipulation that prohibits surface disturbance, including 

geophysical vehicle or shot-hole operations within one-quarter mile or the visual horizon, whichever is 

closer (geophysical cable laying by hand-crews on foot is allowed).”

Response: BLM acknowledges that the actual size or distance varies for wildcat/exploratory wells to 

infill wells in an existing field and also that they vary from field to field, but for the analysis purposes of 

the draft EIS/RMP, the across-the-planning area averages included on page 4-4 of the draft EIS are 

adequate. 

Comment: Even if nothing else were to ever be exploited in the RMP area, the number of wells already 

approved to be operational over the next 6 decades from existing developed fields cannot be ignored in 

the planning process. How many wells in total would Alternate #3 include if full field development were 

to occur and if the expansion of the Pinedale Anticline as industry has proposed were to be approved? 

How much groundwater and surface water would this consume, along with water needed to support the 

projected growth in the Pinedale and fringe communities included in the PRMP area? Many other similar 

questions arise regarding air quality. These are serious matters and require answers. 

Response: Alternative 3 projects 5,209 new wells from 3,946 wells pads between 2001 and 2020. This is 

over and above the 1,800 ± existing dormant and producing wells at the end of 2001. Volume of ground 

and surface water used has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: Page 4-4 Surface disturbance projections for leaseable minerals development assume one well 

per well pad with a support road and pipeline, for a disturbance projection of 7.1 acres. For each 

additional well added to a well pad, the total (planning area–wide) surface disturbance projection would 

decrease by almost 6 acres (i.e., a pad with two wells, support road, and pipeline would have a projected 

disturbance of 8.4 acres, whereas two individual pads with a single well, road, and pipeline would disturb 

14.2 acres). 

With four wells on a pad, the total projected disturbance would be decreased by 18 acres (i.e., a pad with 

four wells, support road, and pipeline would have a projected disturbance of 10.4 acres, whereas four 

individual pads with a single well, road, and pipeline would disturb 28.4 acres). One hundred pads with 

four wells each and support roads and pipelines would disturb 1,040 acres, whereas 400 individual wells 

with a single well, road, and pipeline would disturb 2,840 acres.

Comment–The BLM should ensure that total net surface disturbance assessments include smaller and 

mid-range drilling and development programs, in addition to the large scale drilling projects that drive 

RMP revisions. Roads and access routes developed or improved for energy projects often become 

dedicated ROV and sportsman access routes, and should on a case-by-case basis be excludable from net 

disturbed surface acreage. 

The draft assumptions for large projects should be based on good faith estimates by the operators; BLM’s 

estimates are greater than used by Exxon for their La Barge Area development. The final plan should 

recognize that experience has shown that surface disturbance to date is less than predicted and future 

surface disturbances will be reduced further. Estimates ranged from 7 acres/well in 1984 to 3+ acres per 

well in the RMP and 1994 TTHB EA and are expected to average 1 acre/well for future development. 

A27-356 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Minerals 

Response: The text on page 4-4 of the draft EIS provides a disturbance assumption for analysis purposes 

and is intended to serve as an average disturbance rate across the planning area. BLM recognizes that in 

certain areas the disturbance would be less than the projection; however, we also recognize that in other 

areas, such as a remote wildcat well, the disturbance rate could be substantially greater than the 

projection. The following statement has been added to analysis assumption for well pad and related 

disturbance in the final EIS: “Some wells may be developed with less disturbance than these projections, 

while other wells may result in substantially greater disturbance rates.” Regardless of post-development 

uses of well pad roads/access routes, it still constitutes disturbance on the land and as such needs to 

remain part of well field development disturbance acreage.

Comment: We agree with Sublette County comments that the tone of the RMP suggests that any oil and 

gas resources not developed during the life of this plan somehow become lost or irrecoverable. In fact, 

future revisions of the RMP could facilitate such recovery. One result of this perspective is to value nearterm recovery over long-tem recovery, thereby diminishing the potential contributions of energy resource 

development to long-term economic sustainability of our communities. 

Response: The draft EIS/RMP does provide projections that certain management decisions could render 

oil and gas resources in the affected area non-recoverable. This is based on the proposed decisions under 

the various alternatives analyzed. It would be speculative, at best, to assume a future planning effort may 

change a decision thus making resources recoverable in the future. It would be equally speculative to 

assume that future technologies and/or economic factors would make resources recoverable. 

Comment: BLM is also charged with care/conservation of “our” surface and mineral resources, land such 

drilling/production regulation should require leasees/operators to prove by technologies to BLM, in 

conjunction/addition to Wyo. O/G Commission, that more wells/locations are necessary (not just 

acceleration) and should require that all applicable best available technology and equipment be utilized 

for these activities.

Response: Operators have to obtain down spacing approval from WOGCC. As part of their spacing 

request, operators must provide sufficient rationale and supporting data. BLM’s Reservoir Management 

Group reviews spacing requests and provides input to WOGCC where federal minerals are involved.

Comment: The analysis in the DRMP does not adequately address the amount of resources that will be 

potentially unrecoverable under each category of each alternative for No Surface Occupancy and Visual 

Resource Management Classes as well as any and all management actions which limit oil and gas 

development. For example, the total recoverable estimate in the DRMP is 19 TCF in Alternative 4 

(Appendix 10, page A 10-4). This is less than the current reasonable foreseeable development estimate of 

20 - 25 TCF for the Pinedale Anticline alone.

Response: On pages 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-

72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, and 4-77 of the draft EIS, BLM indicated potential actions that could cause leasable 

minerals (including oil and gas) to become unrecoverable. The cumulative impact analysis (section 4.19.8 

on pages 4-245 and 4-246 of the draft EIS) projects the amount of oil and gas that will be recoverable 

during the planning period for all alternatives and estimates the percentage of reduction in oil and gas 

production due to proposed restrictions. These percent reductions in volumes are considered to be the oil 

and gas resource that is unrecoverable due to restrictions identified for each alternative for the 20-year 

planning period that was analyzed.

Yellowstone and Lands Outside the Planning Area 

Comment: To drill in Yellowstone is to invite disaster. The volcanic caldera underneath is waiting to 

erupt and with the world heating up from Global Warming, any more wells is a very dangerous idea. 

Pinedale RMP A27-357 
Appendix 27—Minerals Final EIS 

There is no way of to be safe, other than not to disturb it. 7,000 more gas wells is very dangerous. This 

promotes a bigger impact on the world than we need right now.

Response: This RMP does not include or apply to any lands in or adjoining Yellowstone National Park. 

Comment: Please DO NOT SUPPORT FURTHER DRILLING FOR ANYTHING IN THE 

YELLOWSTONE PRESERVE. It is unlike anyplace in the world and we need it far more than we need 

the gas.

Response: This RMP does not include or apply to any lands in or adjoining Yellowstone National Park.

Comment: I understand that the natural gas drilling that is being done in Northern Wyoming - Teton 

County - is shallow drilling that pumps water out of the aquifer and also kills the vegetation. Water is a 

more valuable resource than natural gas - unless we’ve figured out a way to drink gas...we need to reduce 

our dependence on fossil fuels! 

Response: The planning area does not include any part of Teton County, nor are the wells drilled 

shallow; they range in depth from approximately 8,000 feet to more than 20,000 feet. 

Comment: You cannot drill in Yellowstone without upsetting a precarious balance. That is volcanic 

territory and know one knows what drilling might cause. The ecosystem needs to be left alone. This 

planet is in enough trouble; do not do this. The planet cannot take much more of mankind’s destructive 

ways. Please look for alternative sources or mass produce ethanol. Green is good-spread green Peace.

Response: Yellowstone National Park is not in the planning area; therefore, the Pinedale RMP/EIS does 

not propose management actions for this area. There is no current seismic evidence to suggest the magma 

chamber extends under the planning area.

Comment: I also DO NOT want further drilling in the Hoback basin or the Bridger Teton forest because 

it will ADVERSELY effect my way of life by changing the rural ranching community to one based on 

gas development. The Bondurant community would be scarified and totally lose its pioneering 

community spirit. Please take this letter into consideration when making any decisions involving further 

oil/gas leasing in and around the Hoback basin and the Bridger Teton Forest. Please direct what power 

you have as an official to impress upon the BLM and Forest services that we (the tax payers) want a 

comprehensive plan for our federal lands 

Response: BLM does not have the authority to make leasing decisions on the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest. BLM also lacks authority to prohibit development of existing valid oil and gas leases on BLMadministered lands and mineral estate. The areas available for oil and gas leasing have been amended in 

the final EIS. 

A27-358 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Paleontology, Natural History 

Paleontology, Natural History 

General Comment Responses: No GCRs are associated with this category.

Comment: PAGE: 4-90, SECTION: 4.8.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE to REMOVE BIAS 

Physical damage or destruction to paleontological resources could result from trampling by grazing 

animals (livestock, wildlife or wild horses) or from OHV activities if specific localities or fossils are 

impacted. EXPLANATION: Arbitrary and capricious to suggest wildlife and wild horses would avoid 

paleontological objects and livestock would not.

Response: New studies in the planning area have taken a harder look at the impacts on paleontological 

resources, which include wildlife, domestic animals, and OHVs. The Blue Rim-Ross Butte Management 

Area is known to hold significant fossil resources, which will have new stipulations under the RMP. 

Pinedale RMP A27-359 
Appendix 27—Recreation and Visitor Services Final EIS 

Recreation and Visitor Services 

General Comment Responses: No GCRs are associated with this category.

Safety Concerns 

Comment: A few other considerations follow: BLM/Green River-Warren Bridge Recreation Area 

Campsites: BLM Campsites #1 and #1 to #3 areas (or further north) are too close to rural 

residences/subdivisions with houses where people live full time with 1/3 to 3/8 miles and more away. 

Many people in various size groups from various distances/states day-trip and camp for days in these 

areas along the river, sometimes entering in darkness when they cannot observe surroundings (even if 

they thought to look around!), and fire/shoot weapons of various calibers often firing towards such homes 

without knowing this danger when down in the canyon (they can’t control ricochets and in heat of a huntantelope and deer and gamebirds-do not know there are homes just over the river ridge and other hills.

Response: You have raised BLM’s awareness of area residents’ safety concerns. The unsafe use of 

firearms is a problem BLM must address where appropriate. Public lands are open to legal hunting and 

the discharging of firearms for other sporting purposes is allowed. BLM is currently increasing the 

public’s awareness of the proper use of firearms within the Warren Bridge River Access Area. New 

signing and user ethics information will be posted at the access portals. The discharging of firearms 

within developed recreation sites is prohibited and violators are subject to penalties. 

Comment: BLM/Green River - Warren Bridge Recreation Area Campsites: BLM should prevent and not 

allow firing weapons, or fireworks as also occurs (fire hazards downwind across river), at least not allow 

shooting until camp #3 or further north and west until the base of Aspen Ridge (on the east side) or 

further west, putting at least 2 miles from the residence/ranch/subdivision nears.

Response: You have raised BLM’s awareness of area residents’ safety concerns. The unsafe use of 

firearms is a problem BLM must address where appropriate. Public lands are open to legal hunting and 

the discharging of firearms for other sporting purposes is allowed. BLM is currently increasing the 

public’s awareness of the proper use of firearms within the Warren Bridge River Access Area. New 

signing and user ethics information will be posted at the access portals. The discharging of firearms 

within developed recreation sites is prohibited and violators are subject to penalties.

Socioeconomic Values 

Comment: No mention of hunting and fishing resource use is identified in the recreation and visitor 

services management discussion. This area is known for providing substantial economic and 

environmental benefits to local residents and visitors in terms of fishing and hunting activities. Impacts to 

such recreational activities will be felt by communities, businesses, fishermen, hunters, outfitters, guides, 

the tourism industry, and many others if the habitat resource is developed beyond its ability for the 

outdoor user to enjoy the values of this management area.

Response: BLM recognizes the economic and social values associated with sport hunting and fishing 

within the planning area. Adverse impacts to these activities from development could occur to a greater or 

lesser degree under all alternatives. The socioeconomic values derived from outdoor recreation pursuits in 

the planning area are poorly documented due to the dispersed nature of use and the expanse of public 

lands. Unfortunately, practical assessment methodologies to determine levels of recreation use have yet to 

be developed that can be applied to typical BLM lands. Please refer to the socioeconomic section of the 

proposed RMP for additional information related to the economic factors associated with hunting and 

fishing.

A27-360 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Recreation and Visitor Services 

Comment: Recreational use and its economics is also miscast in the DEIS. During the life of this RMP, it 

will likely be inappropriate, as it may be already, to measure the recreation/economic value of public 

lands in terms of hunting licenses, for example. As the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee 

stated in 2006, “A variety of factors will affect recreation demand and preferences over time. Among 

these are population growth, aging, and income levels; technological changes; and proximity to, and 

availability of opportunities. Across the Rocky Mountain West participation in walking and wildlife 

viewing is projected to skyrocket in the years leading up to 2050. In the Yellowstone-Teton Region, (that 

includes Sublette County), population growth by itself will intensify recreation demands. Between 1990 

and 2000 Sublette County population grew 22.2%. While National Park visitors come from all over the 

world, the majority of visitors to the region’s national forests live nearby. The same pattern is true for 

BLM, state and local government lands... This raises questions about how our public lands can best 

accommodate intensifying and changing recreation demands, while sustaining other qualities such as 

wildlife habitat and water quantity and quality.” 

Response: The sale of hunting licenses does not measure the value of recreation. However, the sale of 

hunting licenses does provide an indicator of the number of individuals hunting in the study area, 

especially if those licenses are for special draw areas. But this only provides a starting point to determine 

the value of consumptive use (fishing, hunting, etc.) and does not capture the value of non-consumptive 

use. Therefore, the section addressing the socioeconomic value of recreation has been expanded to make 

that distinction.

Comment: PAGE: 2-124, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Provide substantial personal, 

community, economic, and environmental benefits to the county, local residents and visitors through 

recreational uses of the public lands. EXPLANATION: Permit system does not make sense. RMP fails to 

address demand for recreation and the extent to which BLM fails to meet that demand. Due to 

Wyoming’s unique system of revenue distribution, county receipts are largely limited to sales tax and 

recreation use plays a major role in that.

Response: The goal as presented in the draft EIS is appropriate.

Off-highway Vehicles (OHV) 

Comment: PAGE:2-136 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete entire OHV section and 

rewrite EXPLANATION: The local governments believe that there is increased demand for cross-country 

recreation. The RMP proposes to remove cross-country travel from public lands except for two small 

areas. There are two possible solutions: convey land to the county or communities for OHV recreation 

under the RPPA. Alternatively, BLM needs to delete the entire discussion and effect OHV closures as 

part of a coordinated activity plan. The RMP fails to properly consider alternatives, fails to consider 

significant adverse impacts on private land when public land is no longer available for cross-country 

recreation and completely ignores the increased demand for cross-country recreation. Nor is it accurate 

for the RMP to call OHV use on existing roads OHV. OHV is defined as ‘crosscountry’ which does not 

mean motor vehicle use on existing roads and trails. 

Response: BLM recognizes the legitimate need for OHV activities utilizing motorized off-road, crosscountry travel. However, public sentiment and BLM transportation and planning guidance does not 

support unlimited off-road, cross-country motorized travel. Generally, unlimited motorized cross-country 

travel may be warranted in areas where it does not impact other valuable resources, where conflicts with 

other recreational activities are insignificant, and where a substantial demand for this type of motorized 

recreational activity has been demonstrated. OHV use is determined more by the type of vehicle rather 

than the terrain being used. See the glossary definition in Chapter 7 of the RMP. The comment implies 

that large areas would be closed to OHV use, which is not the case. Under the Preferred Alternative, only 

Pinedale RMP A27-361 
Appendix 27—Recreation and Visitor Services Final EIS 

23,730 acres, mostly in wilderness study areas, would be closed to OHV use. Approximately 771,000 

acres would be available for OHV use on existing roads and trails.

Comment: PAGE:2-135 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Objective 3 Make public 

lands available for responsible OHV use where appropriate to meet demand for OHV recreation use.

Response: The recommended change is redundant since demand is one component included within the 

context of this objective.

Comment: PAGE: 4-97, SECTION: 4.9.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLAIN BASIS FOR 

DECREASING OHV USER AREAS The demand for fishing, floating, camping, OHV use, and new 

technology-based recreation is expected to increase. EXPLANATION: RMP makes arbitrary decisions 

regarding OHV use in area.

Response: This document does not propose an arbitrary decrease in OHV use. Alternatives vary by OHV 

designation with corresponding acreages; however, the vast majority of OHV use designations would 

remain limited to existing roads and trails. The increase in demand for the majority of traditional 

recreation pursuits is an accepted assumption given expected population increases and advancements in 

recreational equipment technologies, most commonly motorized equipment.

Comment: PAGE: 4-97, SECTION: 4.9.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: To address the anticipated 

increase in demand for OHV recreation, BLM will accept R&PPA applications for county or city 

sponsored OHV areas. EXPLANATION: Closure of much of planning area to OHV and the rest 

reclassified as limited OHV use cannot be justified in light of admissions throughout FEIS that there is 

increased demand and only site-specific resource issues. Local governments suggest that BLM instead 

allow them to assume management for OHV use under RPPA, 43 U.S.C. §869.

Response: BLM has determined that unlimited off-road use is not appropriate in the planning area. 

Transferring the lands to another agency ownership for the purpose of allowing unlimited off-road use 

would be irresponsible. The Preferred Alternative would close less than 24,000 acres, approximately 

2.5% of the planning area, to OHV use. It is incorrect to portray areas limited to existing roads and trails 

as closed to OHV use.

Comment: PAGE: 4-108, SECTION: 4.9.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Establishing the Big Piney, 

LaBarge and Mount Airy OHV Open areas could provide substantial benefits and reduce user and 

resource conflicts. EXPLANATION: Restore size of Mount Airy to 7000 acres. RMP makes significant 

reductions in OHV areas open, while FEIS acknowledges that there is an increase in demand for OHV 

recreation use.

Response: The Mount Airy OHV Open Area and Desert General Open Area remain as actions for 

consideration under Alternative 1. The potential increase in recreation demand for motorized recreation 

use is not solely predicated upon unlimited off-road motorized use. BLM recognizes the legitimate need 

for OHV activities utilizing motorized off-road, cross-country travel. However, public sentiment and 

BLM transportation and planning guidance does not support unlimited off-road, cross-country motorized 

travel. Generally, unlimited motorized cross-country travel may be warranted in areas where it does not 

impact other valuable resources, where conflicts with other recreational activities are insignificant, and 

where a substantial demand for this type of motorized recreational activity has been demonstrated. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-160,K RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Reducing OHV Open areas by 

244,140 acres and increasing the amount of area, by 124,980 acres, in which OHV use is limited to 

designated roads and trails would reduce the level of vegetation disturbance compared to Alternative 1. 

A27-362 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Recreation and Visitor Services 

The displaced recreation users will make grater use of private lands which are primarily along rivers and 

stream thus causing greater environmental harm. EXPLANATION: EIS needs to disclose this direct 

outcome of decision to ignore demand for OHV recreation.

Response: The recommended change is not appropriate because there is no available information 

indicating that a potential increase in OHV use, and any associated impacts on private lands, could be 

attributed to land use decisions considered in the RMP. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-107, SECTION: 4.9.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Recreational lands 

acquisitions could be less because of no net loss in private land restrictions. In addition, fewer acres 

would be available for withdrawal. This could cause a moderate reduction in dispersed recreation 

protection afforded by this lands management action. OHV closures and reclassification will be mitigated 

by opportunities for local governments to lease public land under R&PPA for OHV areas.

Response: The recommended change is not appropriate because the action of withdrawals does not 

explicitly reduce access for motorized OHV use. 

Wildlife, Hunting 

Comment: PAGE: 3-137, SECTION: 3.18.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: CCC Ponds. During the 

Great Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) had a camp on the south end of Fremont Lake. 

The CCC’s project was to construct an irrigation ditch to serve the county and some ponds to retain water. 

Through the cooperative efforts of the Pinedale Middle School, USFS, Sublette County Conservation 

District, and BLM, today this area has been set aside as a local recreation haven. Opportunities in the area 

include hiking, fishing, wildflower and wildlife viewing, and mountain biking. The Pinedale Pedestrian 

Pathway connects the area to Pinedale. Mule deer also cross through this area using both public and 

private land [bottleneck ] (STRIKEOUT) as they migrate across the south end of Fremont Lake. Beautiful 

mountain views are a backdrop to this glacial landscape. EXPLANATION: As is true for Trapper’s Point, 

since game animals ignore fences and cannot read signs, it is not a “bottleneck” for game animal 

migration.

Response: Migration bottlenecks occur naturally and are created by topography, not necessarily by 

fences. The CCC Ponds area is a documented bottleneck on the mule deer migration route along the base 

of the Wind River Mountains.

Comment: PAGE: 4-99, SECTION: 4.9.3, EXPLANATION: Not clear why energy development will 

impair commercial hunting or hunting recreation. Game numbers are at all time highs and no data show 

decrease in big game numbers.

Response: Game numbers are not at all-time highs; many populations are below objective. Energy 

development impacts hunting through gradual reduction in game population resulting from loss of winter 

range.

Pinedale RMP A27-363 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Socioeconomics 

General Comment Responses: 

Comments: 

• There is the argument that many people are prospering from this surge in population and increase 

in spending. However, the reality is that we have an increase in a population that is temporary, 

that comes with an increase in crime, drugs, and health care needs. Our infrastructure and ability 

to serve this population is overwhelmed. Many local business and ranches cannot compete with 

the wages offered in the field and are struggling to make ends meet. 

• Long term damage is being done to the community thrown up housing developments, drugs 

(meth) in the community, etc. Wildlife has short term and long term damage being done, car and 

truck collisions, poaching, etc. and soil disturbance, drill pads, roads, housing developments, etc.

Response: Social effects are addressed in Sections 4.10.4 and 4.10.5 of the draft EIS. 

Comments: 

• Rapid oil and gas development has a number of negative socio-economic consequences that are 

not adequately recognized in the RMP EIS-the RMP EIS tends to emphasize positive aspects of 

oil and gas development while discounting or ignoring negative consequences. 

• Additionally, I feel the RMP does not reflect the positive socioeconomic benefits natural gas 

development has on Wyoming and on the United States. Wyoming benefits greatly from the high 

paying jobs and increased tax revenue while the county benefits from the new supplies of 

domestic energy. I hope a new RMP alternative will reflect this reality. 

• The record of Decision must evaluate the positive socioeconomic benefits of natural gas 

development.

Response: The analysis of socioeconomic impacts in the draft EIS presents both positive and negative 

impacts of intensive gas development. The discussion of impacts associated with each alternative has 

been enhanced in the final EIS, where necessary, to provide the reader with a balanced analysis of all 

impacts.

Comments: 

• You don’t even disclose what kind of impacts the local governments will face, other than 

increased revenues from mineral royalties. Won’t there be costs to local government as well? 

What kind of costs? How do the costs vs. revenues compare? How do you expect the local 

government to make any decisions from a document that doesn’t even disclose that extremely 

basic information? What about impacts to the local economy? What about impacts to non-mining 

related businesses? What about impacts to the cost of living? 

• We believe that the draft RMP/EIS does not meet the standards for clarity and a reasonable 

assessment of foreseeable socioeconomic effects. The analysis is too generalized, focuses on the 

perceived “economic benefits” of energy resource development while inadequately addressing the 

costs, economic and otherwise, to local governments, service providers and communities faced 

with the challenges associated with rapid growth and development and the subsequent 

A27-364 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

adjustments to post-development contractions. The apparent foundation for the latter seems to be 

the premise that RMP is intended to cover the next 15-to-20 years. 

• We contend that the NEPA requires assessment of long-term impacts of an RMP and the land use 

decisions to be made during its life even when such effects extend beyond the expected life. We 

also believe that the RMP/EIS should reflect a high degree of internal consistency with the sitespecific analyses for the Jonah Infill and Pinedale Anticline. 

• While those statements acknowledge that impacts will occur, they fall short of capturing the 

magnitude, intensity and severity of impacts as required by NEPA. It overlooks issues such as the 

potential jurisdictional and timing mismatch between impacts on demands for services and 

revenue accrual, and challenges faced by service providers, such as recruiting and retaining 

employees to expand services. Furthermore, the discussion treats the seasonality of energy related 

development as a “mitigating” factor rather than a dimension of the development that imposes 

particular challenges for local businesses, governments and service providers.

Response: A review was conducted of the Ecosystem Research Group’s Sublette County Socioeconomic 

Impact Study. This review was used to expand the narrative summarizing the infrastructure needs 

associated with the oil and gas boom forecast under each alternative.

Comments: 

• The costs associated with the ecological damage due to oil and gas roads must be included in the 

analysis of plan alternatives involving oil and gas drilling and oil and gas projects. The agency 

must also include a detailed analysis of the costs associated with monitoring and enforcement of 

increased recreation use of expanded road mileage as part of the NEPA analysis. The costs for 

road maintenance must also be accounted for in the NEPA process. 

• Wildlife habitat fragmentation results in both market and non-market costs. These costs must be 

analyzed as part of the NEPA process for oil and gas development. 

• When proposing oil and gas development, the agency must fully examine and account for the 

risks and costs associated with water depletion, loss of native fisheries and fisheries restoration, 

the additional costs of noxious weed mitigation, and the costs associated with the building and 

potential failure of artificial water retention structures. 

• The agency must assess the adequacy of funding and staffing to achieve the required safety 

enforcement for an oil and gas development. If inadequate funding and/or staff resources might 

prevent thorough enforcement and monitoring, this needs to be made clear and the costs 

associated with the additional impacts must be analyzed as part of the NEPA process.

Response: A benefit-cost analysis would be required to fully analyze all the benefits and costs associated 

with a major oil and gas driven boom. Because the quantification of the non-market impacts are 

considered outside the scope of the analysis used for the RMP, all the benefits and costs cannot be 

quantified. Therefore, a benefit-cost analysis under these circumstances would be incomplete and will not 

be conducted for this RMP. 

Unique Comments: 

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes 

Comment: I have a number of important questions regarding Table A26-2. 

Pinedale RMP A27-365 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

1. First off, why is this extremely important table not in the main body of the document and instead buried 

in the 26th appendix? A data table of this utility must be inserted in the main body of the document.

Response: Table A26-2.1 is included in the draft RMP Appendix because it constitutes supplementary 

information supporting the socioeconomic impact analysis. It is only an estimate of the number of wells 

that might be completed annually based on the Reasonable Foreseeable Development.

Comment: I have a number of important questions regarding Table A26-2. 

3. What proportion of each alternative’s well count in Table A26-2 is comprised by activity on the Jonah 

and the Anticline fields? What proportions are comprised of wells drilled elsewhere? Please provide 

separate columns under each alternative in Table A26-2 that indicates the number of wells predicted to be 

drilled on both the Jonah and Anticline each, as well as some sort of summary as to where the predicted 

location will be of wells drilled outside these areas. Somebody obviously had to take this into 

consideration when they made the table, why not share it with us?

Response: The final report of September 26, 2006, Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenarios for 

Oil and Gas Activities on Federal Lands in the Pinedale Field Office, Wyoming, explains how the 

baseline well count was determined (see section titled “Projected Non-Coalbed Oil and Gas Drilling,” and 

Figure 22, Figure 23, Table 9, and Table 10). The discussion in the Surface Disturbance Section of the 

same report projects that approximately two-thirds of all new wells in the baseline well count would be 

drilled within the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline areas. The discussion in the Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development scenarios for RMP Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 Section of the same report explains how well 

counts were determined for each alternative. Calculations of well count, for each alternative, were made 

for the entire Field Office area; no specific calculation of projected well count for the Jonah and Pinedale 

Anticline areas was made. This EIS is intended to look at cumulative impacts associated with 

development and restrictions on development for the entire Field Office area. Maps 4-1 and 4-2 of the 

draft RMP do provide a picture of approximate well density for new wells drilled for all parts of the Field 

Office area.

Comment: I have a number of important questions regarding Table A26-2. It is my understanding that 

the projected well counts on the Jonah and the Anticline fields will remain largely the same regardless of 

which management alternative is ultimately implemented. Why is there nearly a 25% drop in drilling 

activity between Alternative 3 and the other Alternatives, when the overwhelming majority of drilling 

currently takes place and is predicted to take place on the Jonah and Anticline? Where would these 25% 

of wells be located under alternatives 1, 2, and 4, where they would instead be restricted under alternative 

3? 25% is a huge number, when you are talking about overall scales as large as the Jonah and the 

Anticline. Why, exactly, does the well count drop 25% under Alternative 3? Obviously, someone must 

have some idea, otherwise it wouldn’t be in the table. If this 25% of wells drilled would in fact be located 

in the Jonah or Anticline, why would they be restricted under Alternative 3?

Response: Projected well counts in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline areas would not remain the same, 

regardless of management alternative. Map 2-3 of the draft RMP portrays large parts of the Field Office 

as being either “unavailable for leasing” or with “no surface occupancy” under Alternative 3. These types 

of restrictions can have a significant impact on the potential for future oil and gas development. When this 

map is compared to Map 4-1 and Map 4-2 of the draft RMP, these significant types of restrictions are also 

seen to affect these two areas, thus their application would reduce well counts even within the Jonah and 

Pinedale Anticline areas. Under Alternative 3, the reduction in number of wells drilled would be due to 

large parts of the Field Office area (including the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline areas) having significant 

levels of proposed restrictions. Section 4.7.1, Assumptions, on page 4-46 of the draft RMP, assumes that 

“leasable mineral resources would be considered unrecoverable in areas designated unavailable for 

A27-366 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

leasing. They would also be considered unrecoverable in areas open to leasing but where surface use 

constraints prohibit development operations on areas larger than can be technically and economically 

developed from offsite locations (e.g., Large Block No Surface Occupancy [NSO] Areas). Leasable 

mineral resources within leased in-holdings would be considered recoverable.”

Comment: I have a number of important questions regarding Table A26-2. 

5. Furthermore, can the restricted wells under Alternative 3 in fact be presumed to be eventually drilled at 

a later date beyond 2020? Would Alternative 3 stop the drilling of 25% of the wells, or would it just slow 

it down? In essence, would the pace of development change under Alternative 3, or would simply the 

amount of wells available for development change? If the pace of development does change, why?

Response: Section 4.7.1, Assumptions, on page 4-46 of the draft RMP, assumes that “leasable mineral 

resources would be considered unrecoverable in areas designated unavailable for leasing. They would 

also be considered unrecoverable in areas open to leasing but where surface use constraints prohibit 

development operations on areas larger than can be technically and economically developed from offsite 

locations (e.g., Large Block NSO Areas). Leasable mineral resources within leased in-holdings would be 

considered recoverable.” It also assumes that “directional drilling would not be able to extract all 

hydrocarbon resources within Large Block NSO Areas beyond viable offset distances. For the purposes of 

this document, resources more than one-half mile inside the boundary of an NSO area would be 

considered unavailable for hydrocarbon extraction.” Finally, it assumes that “directional drilling can 

result in unrecoverable hydrocarbon resources in cases when the drill stem gets irretrievably stuck and the 

production casing cannot be set to the bottom of the production formation.” In these instances, the 

resource would not be developed. Alternative 3 would affect a portion of the projected well count 

reduction by affecting pace of development. See first paragraph under section titled “impacts under 

alternative 3” on page 4-61 of the draft RMP for further discussion.

Comment: I have a number of important questions regarding Table A26-2. Why do the projected well 

counts for the Jonah Infill and Anticline SEIS’s exceed the well counts listed on table A26-2 of the RMP 

SEIS? If I recall correctly, and conservatively, the Jonah Infill SEIS projects about 3,000 new wells from 

2006 to about 2018, and the Pinedale Anticline DEIS projects about 4,000 new wells from about 2007 to 

about 2024 = or about 7,000 new wells between now and about 2024, with only a few hundred drilled 

between 2020 and 2024. Yet, on Table A26-2, you list less than 5,000 wells being drilled between 2006 

and 2020 - there seems to be at least 1,000 wells missing from Table A26-2, not even counting all the 

wells drilled outside those two fields!

Response: The subject EISs analyze full field development for these areas for the life of these fields. The 

well counts used for each alternative in this EIS are derived from the final report of September 26, 2006, 

Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenarios for Oil and Gas Activities on Federal Lands in the 

Pinedale Field Office, Wyoming. That report is based on a reasonable, technical, and scientific estimate 

of anticipated activity based on the best available information and data for the period 2001 through 2020. 

It may not assume full field development for all fields for the 2001 through 2020 period. Full field 

development for some areas is assumed to not occur until some time after 2020. The pace of development 

may also be slowed for some of these areas. Additional proposed restrictions (especially those in 

Alternative 3) can reduce the number of wells to be drilled or slow the pace of development. The 

September 26, 2006, report also assumes that the pace of development within the Field Office area will be 

affected by such things as increased development costs, decreased or fluctuating gas prices, lack of 

infrastructure, and competition in the region for drilling rigs and drilling crews.

Comment: SECTION 4.10.4 - PAGE 4-112 First Paragraph (continued from page 4-111): The discussion 

on the SETG needs to be amended. From a historical perspective, the SETG discussion is accurate, 

Pinedale RMP A27-367 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

although the SETG had no power to actually “mitigate” socioeconomic effects (as is stated in the last 

sentence of that paragraph), but only recommend mitigation actions. It should be noted in this section that 

the BLM ultimately refused to implement any of the SETG recommended mitigation actions. But today, 

going forward, the SETG as well as the entire PAWG is no longer functioning. This should be stated. To 

describe or infer that the SETG and the PAWG process are “on-going” in anyway would be inaccurate. 

The BLM has not been able, despite numerous attempts, to hold a PAWG quorum for months. The SETG 

has not met for over a year and has no plans to do so in the future. To be accurate, you should consider 

the PAWG and the SETG as no longer functioning, although there is the possibility and desire for the 

formation of a new PAWG or SETG in the future. Please revise this.

Response: The Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) continues to function, as does the 

Socioeconomic Task Group (SETG). 

Comment: IMPACTS TO COST OF LIVING UNDER EACH ALTERNATIVE: The RMP DSEIS 

seems to analyze the increase in wages that can be expected from various alternatives, but does not 

address the cost of living. The cost of living throughout the region has been increasing congruently with 

increases in natural gas development. The cost of living in the region is at least 16% higher than the state 

average, and has been rising faster than the state and federal averages. 1. Will the increased wages offset a 

possible increase in cost of living? 

2. What types of inflationary pressures will be caused (or not caused) by each alternative? 

4. How will the cost of goods and services change under each alternative? 

“See Graphs Attached”

Response: The final EIS has been revised to include discussion of the real changes in per capita income 

and average family earnings based on cost of living indices published by the State of Wyoming. 

Comment: IMPACTS ON QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES: In the section “Impacts 

on Quality of Life” for all the alternatives, the document simply discloses there will be “impacts” quality 

of life, housing, recreation, etc. What kind of impacts? Positive impacts? Negative Impacts? By the way, 

just using the word “impact” does not in fact actually count towards as any kind of meaningful disclosure 

or discourse.

Response: The final EIS has been revised to discuss the anticipated change in quality of life resulting 

from the intense oil and gas development. But it should be noted that impacts cannot always be described 

as negative or positive. In other words, positive impacts to one individual may be considered negative by 

another. Therefore, this discussion will focus on the extent of the impacts rather than whether they are 

negative or positive.

Comment: IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY STABILITY AND CONNECTIVENESS Same with the 

Impacts on Community Stability and Connectiveness sections under all alternatives: The word “impact” 

is used profusely throughout this section under all alternatives, but a description of the kind, nature, or 

severity of the “impact” is not disclosed. For example, “Under the current management scenario, there are 

expected to be impacts on housing (both rentals and owned real estate) from population growth and the 

seasonal influx of workers.” (Page 4-118) What kind of impacts? What kind of impacts?

Response: The final EIS has been revised to expand the discussions of community stability and 

connectiveness.

A27-368 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

Comment: SECTION 4.10.07 PAGE 4-124 ALTERNATIVE 3 - IMPACTS ON REGIONAL 

EMPLOYMENT In this section you state: “Under Alternative 3, management actions within the planning 

area would be expected to cause a reduction in growth in regional employment compared to Alternative 1. 

Over the 20-year study period, employment would be expected to average approximately 8,000 direct, 

indirect, and induced jobs per year, which is approximately 2,300 fewer jobs per year than are expected 

under Alternative 1.” (Page 4-124) What is the comparison between the employment now, and under 

Alternative 3? Employment would still increase, would it not? This should be disclosed.

Response: A table has been added to the final EIS that compares the anticipated average annual 

employment for each alternative with the current employment. 

Comment: In chapter 4, the BLM recognizes that economic impacts will “likely occur” to employment 

and income, tax revenues, demand for housing and government services as well as the social fabric of 

communities, yet fails to provide detailed information. To fully disclose the economic effects and gain an 

appreciation for mitigation needs, a more comprehensive treatment is necessary. Full disclosure should 

include: 

• Changes in population over the planning horizon, 

• Changes in demographics including age and ethnicity, 

• Employment by sector, 

• Income by sector, 

• Average earnings by sector, 

• Tax revenue by municipal, state and federal jurisdictions, 

• Direct, indirect and induced effects by sector, including multipliers, 

• Increased housing needs for owned and rental units, 

• Demand for recreation, 

• Demand for forest resources, 

• Anticipated trends in crime 

• Infrastructure requirements according to population, 

• Current utilities (water, sewage, power, gas, communications, etc.) 

• Increased demand for utilities, 

• Transportation corridors (current and future demand), 

• Social services: current and future demand [such as, domestic abuse service organizations, 

(Sublette County Sexual Assault and Family Violence Task Force), schools, police, fire, medical, 

etc.].

Response: There was a review of the Ecosystem Research Group’s Sublette County Socioeconomic 

Impact Study. This review was used to expand the narrative summarizing the infrastructure needs 

associated with the oil and gas boom forecast under each alternative. It is not possible to design specific 

mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. 

The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific 

proposal where specific impacts can be predicted and where BLM has the authority to require mitigation.

Comment: The DEIS states (p.4-234) that “not all issues identified for direct or indirect impact 

assessment in this RMP Draft EIS are analyzed for cumulative effects.” This section goes on to qualify 

the lack of cumulative effect analysis incorrectly stating that, “cumulative effects are commonly 

examined at a more qualitative and less detailed level than are direct and indirect effects.” 

Response: The cumulative impact analysis has been revised in the final EIS. 

Pinedale RMP A27-369 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Comment: The full range of affected resources in the DEIS are neither fully presented nor considered. 

Furthermore, the BLM fails to provide a full suite of cumulative effects that collectively examine the 

outcomes of the BLM’s proposed actions in spite of the recognition of the importance of such analysis: 

Throughout this chapter, the terms “impact” and “effect” are used interchangeably. Impacts can be direct, 

indirect, or cumulative. Although impacts may be perceived as positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse), 

those determinations are left for the reader of this document to make. Table 4-1 provides an overview of 

the general types of impacts discussed in this chapter. (p 4-2)

Response: The cumulative impact analysis has been revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: Why is there no section on the Impacts to the Economy? Certainly, you must have a section 

on impacts to the local economy. The effects to the local economy go far, far beyond increases in earned 

income or employment figures. Your entire analysis on the overall economic impact of all alternatives is 

as follows: “Therefore, proposed development on BLM-administered lands would continue to be an 

important economic driver for southwest Wyoming.” (Page 4-116). Occasionally, throughout the different 

alternatives, you offer a few caveats (usually regarding employment) that describe one small facet of the 

potential impacts to the local economy: One example of a small facet is as follows: “An increase in oil 

and gas development activity would be expected to result in increased employment. However, 

employment associated with recreational activities would be expected to decline under this alternative (an 

approximately 7% reduction in recreation employment from Alternative 1) as a result of a reduction in 

recreational visitor days and increases in oil and gas activities. Employment associated with grazing 

operations would be expected to increase under this alternative (a 45% increase compared to Alternative 

1) with its increased grazing opportunities.” (Alternative 2 - Impacts to Regional Employment - Page 4-

121). 

1. How will the entire non-mining-related business sector fare under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4? What 

about service industries? What about construction industries? What about retail industries? Will these 

businesses do better because of the increased gas field workforce buying goods in Sublette County? Or 

will they do worse because of rising inflation, and all their workers leaving to work in the gas field as 

thousands of more high-paying jobs are created out there? 

2. How will the recreation and tourism industry fare with 75%-90% of the area’s motel rooms on a given 

night currently being rented by gas field workers (why is this not mentioned?), how will Alternatives 1, 2, 

3, and 4 effect the tourism industry above and beyond employment? 

3. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the number of employers and employees from the 

food, entertainment, retail, and recreation industries has either declined or remained largely stagnant in 

the last 6 years despite huge increases in population and income. Please include the BLS’s Quarterly 

Census of Earnings and Wages data 2 showing this trend. Will they decline further under Alternatives 1, 

2, 3, and 4? Or will they somehow “turn the corner” and take advantage of rising incomes and population 

by finding workers and less-expensive retail space? 

4. Will the cost of labor increase for non-mining related small businesses? What about the costs of goods 

and materials needed by small businesses?

Response: The final EIS has been revised to include a comprehensive discussion by alternative regarding 

the anticipated impacts to the local economy from intensive oil and gas development.

Comment: IMPACTS TO COST OF LIVING UNDER EACH ALTERNATIVE: The RMP DSEIS 

seems to analyze the increase in wages that can be expected from various alternatives, but does not 

address the cost of living. The cost of living throughout the region has been increasing congruently with 

A27-370 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

increases in natural gas development. The cost of living in the region is at least 16% higher than the state 

average, and has been rising faster than the state and federal averages4. 

1. Will the increased wages offset a possible increase in cost of living? 

2. What types of inflationary pressures will be caused (or not caused) by each alternative? 

3. How will the cost of goods and services change under each alternative?

Response: The final EIS has been revised to include discussion of the real changes in per capita income 

and average family earnings based on cost of living indices published by the State of Wyoming. 

Comment: IMPACTS ON QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES: In the section “Impacts 

on Quality of Life” for all the alternatives, the document simply discloses there will be “impacts” quality 

of life, housing, recreation, etc. What kind of impacts? Positive impacts? Negative Impacts? By the way, 

just using the word “impact” does not in fact actually count towards as any kind of meaningful disclosure 

or discourse. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY STABILITY AND CONNECTIVENESS Same with the 

Impacts on Community Stability and Connectiveness sections under all alternatives: The word “impact” 

is used profusely throughout this section under all alternatives, but a description of the kind, nature, or 

severity of the “impact” is not disclosed. For example, “Under the current management scenario, there are 

expected to be impacts on housing (both rentals and owned real estate) from population growth and the 

seasonal influx of workers.” (Page 4-118) What kind of impacts? What kind of impacts? SECTION 

4.10.07 PAGE 4-124 ALTERNATIVE 3 - IMPACTS ON REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT In this section 

you state: “Under Alternative 3, management actions within the planning area would be expected to cause 

a reduction in growth in regional employment compared to Alternative 1. Over the 20-year study period, 

employment would be expected to average approximately 8,000 direct, indirect, and induced jobs per 

year, which is approximately 2,300 fewer jobs per year than are expected under Alternative 1.” (Page 4-

124) What is the comparison between the employment now, and under Alternative 3? Employment would 

still increase, would it not? This should be disclosed. 

Response: The final EIS has been revised to discuss the anticipated change in quality of life resulting 

from the intense oil and gas development. But it should be noted that impacts cannot always be described 

as negative or positive. In other words, positive impacts to one individual may be considered negative by 

another. Therefore, this discussion will focus on the extent of the impacts rather than whether they are 

negative or positive. The final EIS has been revised to expand the discussions of community stability and 

connectiveness. A table has been added to the final EIS that compares the anticipated average annual 

employment for each alternative with the current employment. 

Comment: Shouldn’t the BLM have to determine in greater detail the socio economic impact that 

Alternative #3 has on our local, state and national economy. Part of the National Environmental Policy 

Act requires that economics of a project be considered: shouldn’t the negative impacts also be described. 

The main part of my comment that you need to respond to is this: What is the economic cost to America 

if Alternative 3 is selected? What federal mineral, direct taxes, state severance and state taxes will be lost 

when land is taken out of production?

Response: The socioeconomic impact analysis presented in the draft RMP is appropriate for the level of 

specificity of an RMP. No alternative proposes taking lands “out of production”. Lands in the unavailable 

areas that are currently leased would become unavailable gradually as those leases expire. BLM does not 

have the authority to prohibit development of existing, valid oil and gas leases. The impacts of selecting 

Alternative 3 are presented through the reduction in the oil and gas RFD and resulting reductions in 

employment, taxes, etc.

Pinedale RMP A27-371 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Comment: I am opposed to Alternative # four which is the preferred alternative of the BLM. This 

alternative will only escalate the environmental impacts that are already threatening the wildlife corridors 

and pristine landscape of Sublette County. To protect what is really of the greatest value now and for the 

future is to designate Green River, upper New Fork, and Hoback Rim areas as Unavailable for Leasing in 

the RMP. 

In my opinion the RMP only glosses over the socioeconomic impact escalated drilling would have on 

Sublette County. The focus of this section is on the economics, more jobs, more money, but little is said 

about sociological impacts on the communities. Does anyone in BLM really understand what the current 

impacts are? A lot of sociological impacts is happening outside of the field that the BLM doesn’t care? 

Response: The areas unavailable for leasing have been revised in the Final EIS and include some of the 

areas mentioned in this comment. 

The discussion of socioeconomic impacts has been expanded in the Final EIS. Although economic data 

are generally available, data and information on some social impacts are difficult to obtain. Information 

gathered by Sublette County has been used extensively in the revision of the socioeconomic impact 

analysis.

Comment: The section of the RMP noted on page 4-129 cites, “Some stakeholder groups such as 

conservationists, non-motorized recreational groups and other wildlife protection groups would likely 

perceive a decreased quality of life as a result of well drilling and field development.” This statement is 

too narrow in scope to be correct. As noted earlier in the same RMP, a survey done several years ago by 

Rice University noted that the majority of Pinedale residents believed there would be a decrease in the 

quality of life, from full field rapid energy development. 

Response: The revision of the socioeconomic impact analysis in Chapter 4 of the proposed RMP final 

EIS addresses these issues. 

Comment: Economic Analysis The RMP has pandered to “lifestyles” for ranchers while ignoring the 

actual contribution of the livestock grazed on the PFO to the local and regional economy. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service publishes reports on the value of wildlife-associated recreation that shows values of 

hundreds of millions of dollars to billions of dollars of revenue related to hunting, fishing and wildlife 

watching in each western state. In addition, the cost of polluted water, loss of watershed storage due to 

soil compaction and loss of herbaceous cover are not counted in the costs of livestock grazing. As the 

reference below shows, in actuality, rural communities as well as livestock permittees depend on other 

sources of income. Laws require that public lands be administered in the long-term interests of the 

American people and not a handful of stockmen, who are permittees, on the public lands. Livestock 

permittees are a small minority of livestock producers in the eleven western states and are insignificant in 

their numbers or their economic contribution to the States, their local and regional economies. Their 

numbers and contribution pale in comparison to the natural values of our public lands. Dr. Thomas 

Power, Chairman of the University of Montana’s Economics Department, in Wuerthner and Matteson 

(2002) points out the minimal economic contribution of federal public lands livestock grazing to local, 

state and regional economies in the West. That reference can be found on-line at: 

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/PDF/wr_TAKING_STOCK.pdf Dr. Power also points out 

that the majority of public lands livestock producers depend on non-agricultural sectors of these local, 

state and regional economies for employment, not livestock production. It is not in the public’s interest to 

blindly continue livestock grazing at unsustainable stocking levels in order to provide a short-term benefit 

to this small minority, while ignoring the values displaced by livestock grazing. The PFO RMP Economic 

analyses should include consideration of this information and the following: • costs of administration • 

costs of installation and maintenance of range improvements borne by the BLM and/or funded by county 

A27-372 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

range improvement funds • grazing fees collected and their distribution to various entities • grazing fees 

collected and net return to the Forest Service and the American people, and separate out the dollars 

returned to grazing permittees and local counties. • value of livestock grazing gross revenue to the 

permittee at current market rates • value of wildlife-associated recreation (DOI 2002) • loss in value of 

wildlife associated recreation to livestock grazing by using equivalent AUMs consumed by livestock as 

applied to wildlife needs (AUMs) and economic benefits • cost of soil erosion and loss of groundwater 

recharge and streamflow • cost of water pollution • the net contribution of the individual livestock 

operations under consideration to the county and regional economy • compare the individual livestock 

operation in dollars and jobs to the local, state and regional economy and report what percentage this 

allotment comprises of this total • compare these various economic values with other economic and 

employment sectors at those local, state and regional levels. 

Response: BLM manages the land for multiple use, which allows many different activities on public land 

as mandated by Congress. Grazing is one of those activities. The ranching industry provides market and 

nonmarket values to Sublette County and the planning area. To the extent possible, these issues are 

discussed in the socioeconomic impact analysis section of Chapter 4. Livestock grazing management 

actions in the plan are designed to prevent or mitigate impacts to other resources. 

Oil and Gas 

Comment: The oil and gas developers have proven (to us) that they are not environmentally responsible. 

They do not even bother to pick up their garbage along the highways. This task seems to be up to the local 

citizens, and we are tired of it.

Response: Oil and gas operators are required to clean up and manage their own trash. However, it is an 

unfortunate truth that any increase in population will also increase the number of individuals who are 

careless with trash. The impact of accumulating trash along highways and other areas has been added to 

the impact analysis.

Comment: This proposal calls for an increase of 4,400 more wells which are almost ten times more than 

the current amount. With the ramped up drilling and removal of year around stipulations the wildlife 

would be greatly impacted. Not only would the native ground species such as sage grouse be impacted but 

also the big game animals which this part of Wyoming is noted for. Already recent studies show a 

correlation between mule deer population decline and increased gas and oil activity.

Response: Currently, there are approximately 3,000 wells in the planning area. The draft EIS analyzes 

impacts that could be expected if approximately 8,000 additional wells were drilled. Chapter 4 presents a 

discussion of impacts to sage-grouse, mule deer, and other wildlife species.

Comment: The BLM should develop and analyze a “no additional leasing” alternative in order to provide 

a true baseline from which to compare the rest of the alternatives. When the BLM assumes that leasing 

will continue along a certain trajectory it incorrectly assumes that these development activities are the 

“status quo” and biases the comparison of the alternatives toward those which favor development by 

presenting the opportunity costs of protecting other multiple values under an assumption that they 

represent a “loss” to the oil and gas industry. This is not the case if the areas have not yet been leased. 

Rather additional leasing (regardless of whether it occurs under the current RMP or the new one) should 

be analyzed as a “gain” for the oil and gas industry with potential costs to other multiple use values that 

provide direct and indirect benefits to the local and regional economy. 

The socioeconomic analyses conducted for the Draft EIS focus almost exclusively on the potential 

benefits of increased oil and gas drilling in the Pinedale area. In fact on page 4-109 this is made explicit in 

the first assumption, stating that the analysis assumes that “Economic benefits to the socioeconomic 

Pinedale RMP A27-373 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

region of influence (ROI) would accrue from BLM-influenced activities...” There is no corresponding 

assumption of cost to the socioeconomic region of influence. The analysis completely ignores some of the 

findings on these costs that the BLM actually presents in its discussion of the current conditions. Absent 

in the analysis is any concrete estimate of the potentially enormous costs to the local communities of 

expanded oil and gas development. See Morton et al. 2002 for more details on the potential costs of oil 

and gas development. These costs are not mere abstractions. The communities of the Pinedale area have 

been experiencing many economic and environmental costs over the last six years, as detailed in their 

comments to the BLM on the proposed expansion of oil and gas drilling on the Pinedale Anticline 

submitted to the agency earlier this year. These costs include the increased traffic from the oil and gas 

fields – which increases wear and tear on the area’s roads necessitating additional public expenditures. 

Increased traffic also results in more accidents, which means greater demand for emergency services such 

as police, ambulance and hospital services. This increased traffic also means there is a need for additional 

traffic-related law enforcement efforts. These are but a few of the socioeconomic costs associated with 

increased oil and gas drilling. Other negative impacts include the documented difficulty that local 

business are experiencing in hiring and retaining employees, increased housing costs, increased costs of 

other goods and services, and an overall loss of the quality of life that long-time residents and newcomers 

alike have come to appreciate in the area. The analysis fails to adequately address these and other costs 

and thus presents a biased picture of the long-term impacts of the proposed management. 

Response: The no additional leasing alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis (see 

page 2-3 of the draft RMP). Projected well counts in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline areas would not 

remain the same regardless of management alternative. Unavailable for leasing and NSO restrictions can 

have a significant impact on the potential for future oil and gas development. Under Alternative 3, the 

reduction in number of wells drilled would be due to large parts of the Pinedale Field Office area having 

significant levels of proposed restrictions. There was a review of the Ecosystem Research Group’s 

Sublette County Socioeconomic Impact Study. This review was used to expand the narrative 

summarizing the infrastructure needs associated with the oil and gas boom forecast under each 

alternative.

Comment: I SUPPORT the BLM’s proposal to increase natural gas production in the Pinedale Anticline, 

in the Upper Green River Valley. This drilling will contribute to the overall security and economic 

stability of the United States, will bring in Federal and State revenues, and if managed in an 

environmentally responsible manner will have minimal negative impact on the environment. 

Response: BLM manages the land for multiple use. This allows many different activities on public land 

as mandated by Congress.

Comment: Alternative 3 (map 2-3) offers the most protection for Pinedale’s views to not become 

industrialized, but even that alternative allows drilling right next to town. The Town of Pinedale asks that 

there not be leasing within a two-mile area of town borders, to not only preserve the town’s character-a 

direct influence on our economic life- but drilling within such close proximity could adversely affect 

public health and well-being. We do not support the industrialization of the views of the Pinedale area. 

This would have a direct (and costly) detrimental economic impact on many of the other businesses and 

real-estate values of Pinedale.

Response: Lands within 2 miles of the town of Pinedale fall generally into two categories. Some are 

included in areas that would be unavailable for leasing under the Preferred Alternative. The rest are lands 

already leased and included in the Pinedale Anticline development area. BLM does not have the authority 

to prohibit development of existing, valid oil and gas leases. Viewsheds are an important non-market 

value which are considered and should be considered in the socioeconomic section. However, BLM must 

honor the rights of oil and gas leaseholders. 

A27-374 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

Comment: What are the socioeconomic impacts of Alternative 3? a. How will impact domestic supplies 

of energy? b. What will be the impacts on Wyoming’s economy when compared to Alternative 2?

Response: A table has been added to the final EIS that shows the percentage of natural gas produced 

under each alternative compared to the current total domestic demand and supply for natural gas in the 

United States. With regard to the socioeconomic impacts associated with Alternative 3, there is a 

discussion of the impacts from intense oil and gas development, but it does not quantify the non-market 

impacts from that same development. That would require a study designed to calculate those values, 

which is beyond the scope of this analysis.

Comment: I read with some concern that Alternative 3 in the Pinedale plan will prohibit gas exploration 

and production on a significant portion of those public lands. I think BLM should investigate the impact 

that this non-development might have on our country. How much money will our local, state, and federal 

governments lose if we don’t develop these resources?

Response: From the numbers in Table 4-14, the difference from the Preferred Alternative would be about 

a $2.2 billion reduction in total production. However, the reduction in the value of production of 

Alternative 3 only tells part of the story. Other sectors may benefit from less energy development, and 

non-market impacts from development have been shown in other studies to be substantial. The nonmarket impacts have not been quantified for this effort because they were considered outside the scope of 

the RMP analysis. 

Comment: Please register my objection to the adoption of Alternative 3 in the proposed Pinedale District 

RMP without adequate study of the lost natural gas production and negative socioeconomic impacts on 

our area. The nation is dependent on more domestic energy supplies and Wyoming is dependent on 

energy extraction for jobs and a growing tax base.

Response: A table has been added to the final EIS that shows the percentage of natural gas produced 

under each alternative compared to the current total domestic demand and supply for natural gas in the 

United States. With regard to the socioeconomic impacts associated with Alternative 3, there is a 

discussion of the impacts from intense oil and gas development, but it does not quantify the non-market 

impacts from that same development. That would require a study designed to get at those values, which is 

beyond the scope of this analysis.

Comment: The area south of Pinedale has 1000s of wells that have had serious effects: Community – 

meth labs with all the social ills that relate to this – theft, violent crime, etc. as noted in Alexandra Fuller’s 

New Yorker article 

Response: This comment is addressed in Sections 4.10.4 and 4.10.5 of the draft RMP, “The PAWG and 

SETG identified a number of social issues and impacts associated with the current level of oil and gas 

production in the area, which is expected to continue with the current management situation. The 

prevalent social impacts occurring in the area from the relatively rapid gas industry development are 

categorized as follows: (1) impacts on community stability and connectiveness; (2) impacts on quality of 

life; and (3) impacts on social and community services. The SETG also identified a number of critical 

social issues or community factors — housing, crime and drugs, education, emergency response and 

social services, and traffic — that could potentially have social impacts from the continued management 

of the planning area. These impacts are addressed within one of the three categories identified above.”

Comment: Drilling has already caused social ills with the population/worker/money explosion (meth labs 

and meth use has gone wild).

Pinedale RMP A27-375 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Response: This impact is addressed in Sections 4.10.4 and 4.10.5 of the draft RMP. Drilling has 

contributed to increased crime, population increases, and increased tax revenues. 

Comment: The BLM must update its socioeconomic evaluation for the Pinedale Resource Area given the 

increased pace of development in the area. Table 4-13 indicates that the BLM assumed that between 255 

(Alternative 3) and 377 (Alternative 2) federal wells will be drilled within the planning area each year. 

The BLM’s analyses in the PAPA SDEIS and the JIDP EIS indicate a much higher rate of development, 

at least for the next several years. The PAPA SDEIS assumed that up to 305 wells could be drilled each 

year, see PAPA SDEIS, pg. 2-27, and the JIDP EIS anticipates up to 250 wells per year, see JIDP FEIS, 

pg. 2-18.

Response: The rate of development used in the RMP is designed to estimate the possible impacts for 

planning purposes. It is meant to gauge what we would expect to happen under each management 

alternative.

Comment: The socio-economic impacts of forgoing resource development should also be fully analyzed 

in the DRMP/EIS. The economic impacts of restricting access to vital energy resources at the local, state 

and national levels should be analyzed in the DRMP/EIS. 

Response: Closing the planning area to new leasing of federal minerals, specifically oil and gas, was 

considered as a method for resolving conflicts with other resource values and uses. The federal mineral 

estate in much of the planning area has already been leased (734,000 acres), and large portions of the area 

(176,000 acres) are developed. This proposal was eliminated from further analysis. Closing the entire 

planning area to new oil and gas leasing would eliminate development and production activities in areas 

where conflicts can be mitigated, or where conflicts do not exist. This action is, therefore, not reasonable 

in light of the nation’s dependence on oil and gas to meet energy demands.

Comment: The economic and social impact from the current development is too much for three counties 

to handle at the current pace of development. The planned management will put even more pressure on an 

already tight housing market not to mention how the development will drive up the price of land. The cost 

of living in Sublette County will become extremely high for people that do not make a living from the oil 

and gas industries. The new resource management plan does mot consider the economic and social 

impacts to the surrounding counties considering the influx of people, increased cost of living, greater 

dependency and demand on emergency first responders, most of which are volunteers, and more roadside 

trash that is also picked up by volunteers.

Response: A narrative and new table have been added to Chapter 3 of the final RMP that show the 

historical real per capita income and average family income adjusted by the cost of living index 

developed by the State of Wyoming for both the impacted area and the State of Wyoming. A new 

narrative has been added to Chapter 4 that discusses the anticipated per capita income and average family 

earnings for the impacted area based on the high cost of living being driven by oil and gas development.

Comment: We, the taxpayers, do not see much benefit from all this drilling. Our air if full of smog, our 

roads congested, our wildlife diminished, our taxes have gone sky high, the local businesses cannot find 

employees, housing is unavailable, the oil field works send their money back home, it doesn’t go back 

into the local economy, crime is higher.

Response: Personal observation and the anticipated impacts are covered in the draft RMP.

Comment: In my opinion the RMP only glosses over the socioeconomic impact escalated drilling would 

have on Sublette County. The focus of this section is on the economics, more jobs, more money, but little 

A27-376 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

is said about sociological impacts on the communities. Does anyone in BLM really understand what the 

current impacts are? O is the attitude because a lot of sociological impact is happening outside of the field 

that the BLM doesn’t care.

Response: The social impacts are discussed in the draft RMP EIS on pages 4-128 to 4-130, including 

impacts on population, impacts on community stability and connectiveness, impacts on quality of life, and 

impacts on social and community services. 

Comment: Appropriately, the BLM indicates that operators would not be required to drill off-setting 

wells in the large-block NSO Areas if the costs of completing and producing those wells would exceed 

the value of the resource being drained by adjoining state or private leases. See RMP DEIS, pg. 2-48. The 

BLM must make it clear that this exception also applies to existing leases within areas unavailable for 

leasing under either Alternative 3 or 4. The BLM must acknowledge and disclose the loss of minerals, 

economic activity, and tax revenue associated with a decision to make significant areas of the planning 

area unavailable for lease, or only available with unduly restrictive NSO stipulations.

Response: The discussion of drainage and off-setting wells in the unavailable areas has been revised in 

the final EIS.

Comment: The BLM must update its socioeconomic evaluation for the Pinedale Resource Area given the 

increased pace of development in the area. Table 4-13 indicates that the BLM assumed that between 255 

(Alternative 3) and 377 (Alternative 2) federal wells will be drilled within the planning area each year. 

The BLM’s analyses in the JIDP EIS and the PAPA SDEIS indicate a much higher rate of development, 

at least for the next several years. The JIDP EIS assumed that up to 250 wells could be drilled each year, 

see JIDP FEIS, pg. 2-18, and the PAPA SDEIS anticipates up to 305 wells per year, see PAPA SDEIS, 

pg. 2-27. Given the potential for increased development in the Big Piney/LaBarge area as well, the 

BLM’s rate of development appears inadequate.

Response: The numbers of wells in Table 4-13 of the draft RMP are averages over the life of the plan. 

They are what BLM expects to happen over a Reasonable Foreseeable Development scenario. The rate of 

development used in the RMP is designed to estimate the possible impacts for planning purposes. It is 

meant to gauge what we would expect to happen under each management alternative. When specific 

drilling and development proposals are received from the holders of oil and gas leases, BLM provides 

more specific analysis of the company’s proposed actual drilling rates; for example, in the Jonah and 

Pinedale Anticline EISs.

Comment: Wyoming has the highest incidence of worker-related deaths in the United States. This is due 

primarily to the oil and gas industry and other extractive industries in the state. We urge BLM to the 

extent possible to include provisions in the RMP which will address this alarming statistic and offer 

greater protection for Wyoming’s workforce.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to regulate staffing and operation of drilling rigs. But a table 

and narrative have been added to Chapter 3 of the final EIS that shows the deaths related to oil and gas 

activity that have occurred since the beginning of the oil and gas boom in the study region.

Comment: The agency should not rely exclusively on a deterministic, single value resource estimate due 

to the high risk an uncertainty with such estimates. According to Rose (2001), “Single-value 

estimates...predict an outcome that is possible, usually optimistic, and nearly always wrong.” A better 

approach is to base estimates of gas and oil resources on a probabilistic range of values based on different 

levels of confidence. A probabilistic range of values more accurately portrays the risk and uncertainty 

inherent in industry estimates of undiscovered gas and oil resources. Reliance on a single value estimate 

Pinedale RMP A27-377 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

does not comply with NEPA because it fails to use a range of values in order to fully consider the risk and 

uncertainty inherent in oil and gas estimates. 

In addition to a range of probabilistic resource values, estimates of economically recoverable resources 

must be made based on a realistic range of prices in order to account for the uncertainty in forecasting 

future prices. Figure 1 shows historic prices for oil and gas in the U.S., and the potential volatility of these 

prices. To account for price uncertainty, USGS scientists use high and low price scenarios when 

estimating economically recoverable resources. We recommend a similar approach, including using 

USGS data for estimating undiscovered oil and gas resources.

Response: The EIS provides an estimate of environmental impacts that could ensue if varying numbers of 

oil and gas wells were developed. The numbers of wells analyzed are not limits, but reasonable estimates 

of development generated to be used in the impact analysis. If development were to proceed to the point 

that impacts exceed those presented in this EIS, further NEPA analysis would be necessary. 

Comment: Please review the RAND Corporation reports (LaTourette, et. al 2002, and 2003; Vidas et. al, 

2003) detailing methods to estimate economically recoverable resources. We also request that the agency 

review Attanasi (1998) which describes methods used by the USGS to estimate economically recoverable 

resources for all the basins analyzed in the Energy Planning and Conservation Act’s (EPCA) 2002 

Assessment. It should be noted that the RAND analyses include some environmental cost, however, 

because they exclude non-market costs, USGS estimates are just the starting point to determine whether 

undiscovered gas is economically viable to extract. The RAND and USGS documents both demonstrate 

the feasibility of making estimates of economically recoverable resources and provide useful guidance on 

methodology.

Response: The EIS provides an estimate of environmental impacts that could ensue if varying numbers of 

oil and gas wells were developed. The numbers of wells analyzed are not limits, but reasonable estimates 

of development generated to be used in the impact analysis. If development were to proceed to the point 

that impacts exceed those presented in this EIS, further NEPA analysis would be necessary.

Comment: We request that the agency make realistic assessments of the likely production curves along 

with the expected rate of development and production for the type of resources to be produced, and that 

all estimates of local revenues be made on an annual basis which reflects the expected annual production.

Response: The draft RMP provides an estimate of environmental impacts that could ensue if varying 

numbers of oil and gas wells were developed. The numbers of wells analyzed are not limits, but 

reasonable estimates of development generated to be used in the impact analysis. If development were to 

proceed to the point that impacts exceed those presented in this EIS, further NEPA analysis would be 

necessary.

Comment: The agency must base analyses of the impacts of oil and gas development proposals on 

estimates of economically recoverable resources, rather than technically recoverable resources. We 

formally request that the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario be based on economically 

recoverable amounts of oil and gas, not technically recoverable oil and gas. We formally request that 

estimates of jobs and income and local and state revenues be based on economically recoverable amounts 

of oil and gas, not technically recoverable oil and gas.

Response: The EIS provides an estimate of environmental impacts that could ensue if varying numbers of 

oil and gas wells were developed. The numbers of wells analyzed are not limits, but reasonable estimates 

of development generated to be used in the impact analysis. If development were to proceed to the point 

that impacts exceed those presented in this EIS, further NEPA analysis would be necessary.

A27-378 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

Comment: The agency must make accurate and realistic estimates of gross and net revenues. We requests 

that the agency determine all applicable Federal, state and local tax laws (including exceptions and 

reductions) and that these laws and regulations be used to make realistic and accurate estimates of net tax 

revenues from oil and gas production. Revenue estimates must be made based on economically 

recoverable resources rather than technically recoverable - and must include the environmental and 

community costs from drilling and production.

Response: The tax revenues have been estimated and reported in the draft RMP.

Comment: The derivation of the “Average Number of Jobs Supported Per Year” should be documented 

more fully. The information presented in the Draft EIS regarding the number of wells to be drilled and the 

workforce assumptions for gas exploration and development (Table A26-1) don’t appear consistent with 

the results portrayed in Table 4-13. Estimates of the numbers of jobs supported by each alternative, as 

presented in Table 4-13, is dependent upon the mix of wells, the extent of seasonal limitations, and 

assumptions regarding the time required to mobilize, place, drill and complete a well. Information 

regarding those assumptions is not presented in the Draft EIS or appendices. It is not clear whether the 

numbers shown are direct oil and gas employment, or total employment (compare the presentation here to 

that in the Pinedale Anticline, e.g., 34.2 jobs for an Anticline well to 47.4 jobs in the Pinedale Anticline 

Draft SEIS – Pg. 4-18). Furthermore, even if the numbers presented in the narrative accurately reflect the 

estimates, the table and narrative should acknowledge the seasonal fluctuations in drilling and exploration 

employment that occur in the region, and the potential that the seasonal peaks would be higher than the 

annual averages.

Response: The narrative has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: What time period is covered by the economic analysis, e.g., average numbers of workers and 

the discounted net present value of future earnings and tax revenues? Footnotes to some tables suggest 

these values only extend through 2020. However, with the exception of CBNG, the typical well lives 

extend beyond 20 years, but at diminished rates of production. The declining long-term production has 

implications for employment and tax revenues that must be acknowledged in the RMP. Tables 4-13 and 

4-14 include several annual averages and net present values (NPVs) of future monetary values. The time 

period associated with the projected oil and gas production levels and monetary values underlying the 

NPVs is unclear. Of particular concern is the representation of the average number of jobs associated with 

oil and gas production, the total labor earnings, and the future royalties and revenues to be derived. While 

the presentation may be accurate in terms of representing an arithmetic mean, it ignores the potential 

year-to-year variability, peaking and inevitable contraction in employment and tax revenues, and 

subsequent effects on social and economic conditions, that correspond with the drilling assumptions in 

Appendix 26. For example, production related employment is relatively low at present, but would 

increase over time. As a consequence, the average numbers of production related jobs shown in Table 4-

13 likely underestimate the potential production employment in the latter years. A year-by-year summary 

of production, the value of production, development and production employment, and tax revenues should 

be included Appendix A-26.

Response: The economic analysis covers the planning period through 2020. The final EIS has been 

updated to include information on employment and earnings by year and alternative.

Comment: I am also concerned that your EIS process has failed to adequately assess and address the 

serious socio-economic and human health impacts of oil and gas development in the region. The media 

(New Yorker Magazine, Washington Post) has provided information on widespread meth-amphetamine 

use and dealing, increased crime and violence, inflationary pressures on local economies, and serious 

threats to historic rural ranching lifestyles. After the development is over, along with the boom wages for 

Pinedale RMP A27-379 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

workers and profits for drug dealers, what will the beautiful Sublette County be left with? Adverse 

impacts to human health will clearly result from oil and gas development in the upper Green River area, 

and your failure to develop an adequate health impacts assessment as part of your planning process should 

be cause to return to the scoping level of plan development. As it stands the draft is flawed and gives the 

impression that a poor and ill-considered decision has already been made!

Response: This comment is addressed in Sections 4.10.4 and 4.10.5 of the draft RMP: “The PAWG and 

SETG identified a number of social issues and impacts associated with the current level of oil and gas 

production in the area, which is expected to continue with the current management situation. The 

prevalent social impacts occurring in the area from the rapid growth in the gas industry development are 

categorized as follows: (1) impacts on community stability and connectivity; (2) impacts on quality of 

life; and (3) impacts on social and community services. The SETG identified a number of critical social 

issues or community factors — housing, crime and drugs, education, emergency response and social 

services, and traffic — that could potentially have social impacts from intense oil and gas development in 

the planning area.” And while these impacts are addressed within one of the three categories identified 

above, the narrative has been expanded to include the impacts from substance abuse, crime, and 

education.

Comment: The BLM’s socioeconomic analysis in the Pinedale RMP undeniably demonstrates the crucial 

role oil and gas development plays in the economic well being of Sublette County and the entire state. 

The BLM’s decisions the Pinedale RMP could result in devastating impacts to the regional economy, 

including the loss of over 2;200 jobs and the loss of 2.3 billion dollars in tax revenue. Given these 

economic realties the BLM cannot select Alternative 3 

The BLM must update its socioeconomic evaluation for the Pinedale Resource Area given the increased 

pace of development in the area. Table 4-13 indicates that the BLM assumed that between 255 

(Alternative 3) and 377 (Alternative 2) federal wells will be drilled within the planning area each year. 

The BLM’s analyses in the JIDP EIS and the PAPA SDEIS indicate a much higher rate of development, 

at least for the next several years. The JIDP EIS assumed that up to 250 wells could be drilled each year, 

see JIDP FEIS, pg. 2-18, and the PAPA SDEIS anticipates up to 305 wells per year, see PAPA SDEIS, 

pg. 2-27. Given this level of development, the BLM’s analysis does not appear to be accurate.

Response: The numbers of wells in Table 4-13 are averages over the life of the RMP. They are what we 

expect to happen over a Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario. The rate of development 

employed in the RMP is used to estimate the possible impacts for planning purposes. It is meant to gauge 

what BLM would expect to happen under each management alternative and does not approve any wells.

Comment: Finally, the BLM needs to capture the economic costs to Wyoming in Alternative 3. 

Anotherwards, if not production occurs would the decreased or lost production cost?

Response: The impacts of selecting Alternative 3 are presented through the reduction in the oil and gas 

RFD and resulting reductions in employment, taxes, etc.

Comment: You see, there are a lot of people who make their living around here in the energy industry. 

When you’re writing plans like the Pinedale RMP, you absolutely need to consider the plan’s impact on 

our local economy. I believe that if you set a correct RFD (which you haven’t done -- but need to) you 

will attract large scale investment that is crucial to our collective future. 

Response: The RFD was reviewed prior to publication of the draft EIS and accurately portrayed 

projected future development at the time of publication. The RFD has been evaluated again for inclusion 

in the final EIS to incorporate changes in areas available for leasing.

A27-380 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

Comment: ...in the spirit of protecting our heritage, economy and way of life that I oppose alternative 3 

and that if is selected I want a detailed socioeconomic analysis in the Final RMP that quantifies just how 

much economic disruption will occur in Pinedale resulting from the resources that are locked away from 

production.

Response: The impacts of selecting Alternative 3 are presented through the reduction in the oil and gas 

RFD and resulting reductions in employment, taxes, etc. 

Boom and Bust Economy 

Comment: Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the resource “bomb and bust” economy that is 

attendant to this type of development will negatively impact the local communities in ways that they may 

never recover.

Response: From Chapter 1 of the draft RMP: “Both Sweetwater County and southern Sublette County 

have experienced energy booms and busts, as early as the 1860s and as recently as the 1980s. Many 

residents welcome the boom times and the related funding these times generate for county budgets and 

improvements in infrastructure. Because many of these communities have already experienced resource 

extraction boom-bust cycles, a Socioeconomic Task Group (SETG) was formed to analyze the impacts of 

these cycles and develop suggestions for their mitigation. Although this group has been disbanded, it did 

prepare a study chronicling the historical impacts from the oil and gas boom. It also included 

recommendations designed to help the impacted communities and counties proactively accommodate the 

expected rapid growth and associated impacts produced by a major oil and gas driven boom.” To 

accurately portray the issues associated with a “boom and bust” cycle, an enhanced narrative has been 

added to the socioeconomics impact analysis, which provides more discussion of what can be expected 

under each alternative with regard to both the “boom” and the “bust”. 

Comment: At a time when global economies are driving demand for resources it would appear to make 

sense to add more drilling to this region. However, when taken in context of the local population the only 

result has been short term employment for interstate persons, inflation and pollution. We have seen the 

boom and bust cycles and the damage that over exuberance in development plans cause both local and 

state economies. There is no denying the short term impacts are very beneficial but long term 

fundamentals are sacrificed for a myopic policy. 

Response: Within the context of Pinedale, increased drilling has resulted in many short-term drilling 

crews coming into the area to work. This, in combination with the intense level of economic activity, has 

impacted the area, resulting in housing shortages, increased real estate values, substance abuse issues, law 

enforcement issues, air pollution issues, wildlife issues, etc. The Chapter 4 narrative has been expanded to 

specifically address all of these impacts.

Comment: Another major concern is the economic future of Sublette County. The gas boom has, for the 

most part, had a positive impact on the local economy and infrastructure. However, the inevitable end of 

the boom may be closer than we think. Certainly if the energy companies are allowed to drill all they 

want, they’ll be done and onto the next town as fast as you can say condensate. While many people here 

would be thrilled to see that happen, one of the community’s mainstays would take a major hit. Tourism 

has always provided a significant amount of income to the residents of Sublette County. Personally, as 

someone who has worked for local outfitters, I know first hand that some people are choosing other 

destinations for their next hunting or fishing trip because of the drastic changes brought on by the boom. 

Where will our tourism industries stand in five years after we’ve drilled 5,000 more wells?

Response: Looking at table A26-2, the major development activity of drilling wells starts to decrease in 

all alternatives in 2013. While it is unclear whether or not this is a large enough decrease in economic 

Pinedale RMP A27-381 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

activity to create a “bust”, the history of energy-driven development throughout the West would lead one 

to the conclusion that a “bust” is inevitable. A discussion regarding the anticipated “boom and bust” cycle 

associated with each alternative has been added to the Socioeconomic section in Chapter 4. 

Tourism has provided a significant amount of income to the residents of Sublette County. The impact and 

extent of reduced tourism money flowing into the region as a result of increased oil and gas development 

is hard to quantify. Furthermore, tourism is spread over a number of industries (hotels, restaurants, and 

retail trade for example), but the increased economic activity being driven by the oil and gas sector 

overwhelms all other sectors. Therefore, when oil and gas activity tapers off there will be a noticeable 

economic decline in the impacted area. This discussion covering the boom and bust that is anticipated has 

been added to the final RMP impact analysis in Chapter 4. The extent of the recovery in the tourism 

industry, however, is unclear.

Comment: Also having industry in the valley will inevitably lower property values, because the property 

will not seem to be so pristine as it is now seen. 

Response: The gas “boom” will increase property values because of an inadequate supply of housing, 

which has been described in the RMP. In addition to supply constraints, however, the long-term impact 

on real estate sales, especially second home sales, is unknown. 

Comment: I am also angry that BLM allows mining, logging and drilling for less than fair market rates. 

The commercial companies should be required to pay for all damages to the properties and fair market 

royalties when they are allowing to drill, mine or log.

Response: BLM manages the land for multiple use. This allows many different activities on public land 

as mandated by Congress.

Comment: A recent article in The New Yorker (2/5/07) found a direct correlation between the dramatic 

rise in crime and meth use in the Pinedale area and gas development. So in addition to ruining the 

environment, it is also ruining the community. 

Response: This comment is addressed in Sections 4.10.4 and 4.10.5 of the draft RMP: “The PAWG and 

SETG identified a number of social issues and impacts associated with the current level of oil and gas 

production in the area, which is expected to continue with the current management situation. The 

prevalent social impacts occurring in the area from the relatively rapid gas industry development are 

categorized as follows: (1) impacts on community stability and connectiveness; (2) impacts on quality of 

life; and (3) impacts on social and community services. The SETG also identified a number of critical 

social issues or community factors—housing, crime and drugs, education, emergency response and social 

services, and traffic—that could potentially have social impacts from the continued management of the 

planning area. These impacts are addressed within one of the three categories identified above.”

Comment: Energy, I might add, that Sublette County residents pay at least double compared to 

consumers farther down the pipeline. Sublette County’s infrastructure was not designed to accommodate 

the amount of activity that is currently present in our midst. 

Response: A draft study has been prepared by Ecosystem Research Group (ERG), which addresses issues 

related to the oil and gas boom. This study has been referenced in the final EIS. Also, an expanded 

narrative has been added to the document that summarizes discussions BLM has had with the impacted 

towns and counties regarding their assessment of infrastructure costs associated with oil and gas 

development. 

A27-382 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

Comment: Don’t indicate “dissatisfaction” with decreased quality of life... Accept responsibility for our 

citizens with your “decisions”. Justify the economic imbalance and havoc regarding our needed “service” 

workers in our community and the workers in the gas fields, the “temporary boom” majority of 

population not integrating into our community’s culture, the fast rising housing, property and food costs, 

the huge impact on medical services, schools and law enforcement, also increased truck traffic on our 

roads with the safety implications and road kill (human and wildlife)! State what you can do to reduce 

meth use and crime increases and animal poaching, emphasizing expectations of responsibility and 

accountability by the gas industry! 

Response: The draft EIS provides an appropriate analysis of the economic impacts of RMP decisions.

Comment: With big game and sage-grouse already impacted by energy development in the Upper Green, 

and the community of Pinedale being adversely impacked by the impacts of the boom - with increased 

drug and alcohol abuse, grounded schools, stressed infrastructure and worsening air quality - enough is 

enough.

Response: These concerns are included in the RMP as well as some positive impacts.

Comment: We believe the DEIS is vulnerable for two reasons: (1) Social and Economic issues were not 

listed as a major “planning issue” (p. 1-6), and (2) The trends and cycles of energy development that has 

occurred periodically within the planning area did not appear in the DEIS. 

Response: The social and economic issues associated with a major oil and gas boom are a byproduct of 

the management decisions described in the RMP. But the purpose of the RMP itself does not include 

managing the social and economic issues associated with those decisions.

Comment: The last area that needs to be discussed is the impact that occurs when these developments 

bring an influx of people into the state to drill the wells, build the roa, pipelines, operate heavy equipment, 

drive trucks to and from the gas/oil locations and operate and maintain the oil/gas fields. They cause 

further degrading of the environment. These new people require new homes that must be built, new sewer 

and water lines, and new power and phone lines. Because the old roads are not adequate to handle the 

increased traffic, they must be rebuilt or new ones constructed. New schools, new businesses and the 

entire infrastructure must be enlarged to meet the new demand. The increase in service and industrial 

industries that is necessary brings more demands on the environment. Another factor that must be taken 

into account is that his enlarged population demands more areas for recreation, which means they operate 

snow machines, all terrain vehicles, motorcycles, boats, campers and pickup trucks and they all burn more 

gasoline that pollute the air and water and have an enormous negative effect on Wyoming’s big game 

wildlife, fish, small game and upland birds.

Response: The narrative discussing the housing needs associated with each alternative has been expanded 

and organized within the socioeconomic section for each alternative. Population increases are discussed in 

Section 4.10.5 of the draft RMP EIS. Increases in the level of population driven by an oil and gas boom 

increase the demand on the infrastructure. A draft study has been prepared by ERG that addresses this 

issue, and the study has been referenced in the final EIS of the proposed RMP. It is difficult to quantify 

the anticipated increased demand for recreational opportunities. The final EIS has been revised to include 

this information. 

Comment: I would like to see a slower pace of drilling. Once the drilling is finished a lot of sales taxes 

will cease. The town of Pinedale does not receive production taxes so this will be hard on the town to 

maintain the population and improvements that were made during the boom times.

Pinedale RMP A27-383 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Response: A discussion of the impacts of industrial booms and busts has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: In Sublette Co. we do not have the infrastructure to accomodate the large numbers of people 

coming here to work.

Response: A draft study has been prepared by ERG that addresses the budgetary issues related to oil and 

gas booms. This study has been referenced in the final EIS. 

Comment: SECTION 4.10.4 - PAGE 4-112 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES First 

Paragraph: In the short introduction, you list a number of potential socioeconomic impacts. What about 

changes to the local economy? What about changes to the local government? You mention tax revenue, 

what about tax expenditures? Please include the changes to both the mining and non-mining sectors of the 

economy, as well as changes to the local government.

Response: A narrative has been added to the RMP that discusses the increased demand for services 

created by a major oil and gas driven boom. This discussion will focus on the increased revenue coming 

into the impacted areas balanced against the increased demand imposed on the impacted communities and 

counties for services created by the boom itself. It will also point out the fact that there are uncertainties 

regarding the extent of both the boom and and the bust. These uncertainties increase the risk to the 

impacted area when major financial commitments are made in the face of the bust. Because the bust 

places a long-run burden from those financial commitments on the residents who remain in the area after 

the bust occurs. 

Comment: The DEIS is an incomplete document due to the lack of long term trend socioeconomic 

characterization and analysis. There are clearly some adverse socioeconomic impacts resulting from 

energy development on public lands under the BLM authority. As NEPA defines EISs as disclosure 

documents, these impacts must be fully examined and reported in the FEIS. Without having 

socioeconomic impacts as a planning issue it is impossible to carry out the intent of NEPA. 

Response: There was a review of the Ecosystem Research Group’s Sublette County Socioeconomic 

Impact Study. This review was used to expand the narrative summarizing the infrastructure needs 

associated with the oil and gas boom forecast under each alternative. It is not necessary to identify 

socioeconomic impacts as a planning issue in order to develop an appropriate impact analysis.

Comment: It would be very difficult (say, in a court of law) for the BLM to argue that it did not know 

that there will be a “bust”. That is to say, an economic downturn associated with the completion of the 

labor-intensive “development” phases of natural gas extraction. Everybody knows there will be some sort 

of downturn associated with the end of the development phase. What kind of downturn? It is hard to say. 

It could be a minor downturn, perhaps because of the inherent attractiveness of the area and the fact that 

the majority of the gas field workforce here has remained non-resident in nature; however, history tends 

to tell us otherwise. In fact, one could argue (and many do) that the socioeconomic impacts associated 

with “the bust” will be even greater than the impacts from “the boom”.

Response: There has been a narrative added to the document that discusses the anticipated boom and bust 

cycle associated with the oil and gas drilling anticipated in the study area. The discussion of the bust will 

focus on the fact that the analysis highlighted in Table A26-2 of the draft RMP indicates that the major 

development activity of drilling wells will slack off in all alternatives in 2013. 

Comment: Oh, wait, you don’t even mention any kind of economic down turn at all! You don’t even 

mention the bust, much less disclose what kinds of impacts the bust will have. How could you neglect to 

disclose what is possibly the largest socioeconomic impact this federal action will have? How do you 

A27-384 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

expect the local community and decision makers to plan for the future and help manage these impacts, if 

they are not even disclosed in the first place? You don’t even disclose what kind of impacts the local 

governments will face, other than increased revenues from mineral royalties. 

Response: There has been a narrative added to the document that discusses the anticipated boom and bust 

cycle associated with the oil and gas drilling anticipated in the study area. The discussion of the bust will 

focus on the fact that the analysis highlighted in Table A26-2 of the draft RMP indicates that the major 

development activity of drilling wells will slack off in all alternatives in 2013. There was a review of the 

Ecosystem Research Group’s Sublette County Socioeconomic Impact Study. This review was used to 

expand the narrative summarizing the infrastructure needs associated with the oil and gas boom forecast 

under each alternative.

Comment: If economic factors are not considered, the opportunity costs of all forms of environmental 

protection will be overestimated. The agency will also likely overestimate the cost of lease stipulations, 

wilderness designation, and other protective measures if technically recoverable estimates are used. If the 

oil and/or gas are not economical to extract, there is no adverse impact on resource supplies from 

protecting wildlife, archeological sites, recreation sites and other public resources with leasing 

stipulations. Further, an EIS that relies on misleading economic information or fails to include all relevant 

costs in its economic analysis will violate NEPA, because it does not provide decision-makers and the 

public a valid realistic foundation on which to judge proposed projects. 

Response: An EIS must disclose all the impacts created by an oil and gas boom, including both the 

positive and negative impacts. The discussion of impacts associated with each alternative has been 

enhanced where necessary to provide the reader with a balanced analysis of all impacts. However, to 

quantify the non-market impacts, a non-market study using, for example, the Contingent Valuation 

Method (CVM) would be required, which is beyond the scope of this effort. In the absence of a CVM 

study, a comprehensive narrative has been added to the final EIS that subjectively describes the 

importance of non-market impacts in the context of an intense oil and gas boom.

Comment: What about the economic downturn usually associated with the post-development phase of 

gas field extraction? Surely, this must be included in your socioeconomic analysis of a management area 

that includes two of the nation’s largest on shore natural gas fields. Right? You admit that the area is in a 

“boom/bust cycle” on pages 4-111 and 4-112. Even if you planning horizon ends at 2020, the Jonah Field 

is predicted by the BLM to reach full development well before 2020, while the Anticline is predicted to 

reach the full development very soon after 2020. 

Surely, an impact this enormous, of which the overwhelming majority is due to a BLM management 

action on federal lands, must be disclosed and closely analyzed to be considered as in compliance with 

NEPA3, right? I would have to assume that not disclosing the impacts of a widely anticipated economic 

downturn associated with the “bust” of natural gas development would surely be a violation of NEPA 

compliance. You might start by answering the following questions: 

1. How many jobs will be lost after the gas fields are totally developed? What effect will this have 

on the local economy? 

2. What effect will the downturn have on the housing market? 

3. What effect will the downturn have on sales and property tax revenue received by local 

governments?

Response: The final EIS has been revised to include enhanced discussion of boom and bust cycles. 

Pinedale RMP A27-385 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Comment: What about impacts to local housing prices? Will housing sales and rentals likely increase 

from Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4? What about the cost of constructing a new home? If prices will increase, 

what effects will that have on attracting professionals to provide the increase of social and community 

services that you predict will be needed? 

COST OF GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL, AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UNDER EACH 

ALTERNATIVE: All you mention is increased tax revenues to local governments. What about increased 

operational costs? What a mighty rosy picture, indeed. You can start by answering the following 

questions: 

1. Will the local government have to raise wages to compensate for wages paid in the gas field? 

2. Will local government operating budgets increase under all the alternatives, or under certain 

alternatives? 

3. Will the costs of materials for capital expenditures, road construction, machinery, and supplies 

increase? 

4. What new facilities or staffing considerations will be needed to absorb the growing need for 

government and other social services? 

5. How will these costs compare to the revenue increases expected from natural gas development 

under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4? 

6. Will the local governments be required to spend more money repairing streets and roadways 

under Alternatives 1,2,3, and 4? 

7. What about local infrastructure costs required to expand municipal services to a growing 

population? How will costs for sewer and water services by local towns change under 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4? 

8. How will street, park and other town maintainence costs change for the towns with growing 

populations due to increased employment from the federal actions under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 

4? 

9. Are current town sewer and water facilities adequate to absorb the predicted growth under 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4? Or should they be planning to upgrade and expand these facilities 

under certain Alternatives or all Alternatives?

Response: The final EIS has been revised to discuss the anticipated impacts to housing demand, housing 

supply, and housing prices under each alternative and also under the bust once it sets in. There was a 

review of the Ecosystem Research Group’s Sublette County Socioeconomic Impact Study. This review 

was used to expand the narrative summarizing the infrastructure needs associated with the oil and gas 

boom forecast under each alternative.

Comment: When estimating the benefits of an oil and gas development project the agency must show 

these benefits as net rather than gross. The increased public service and infrastructure costs associated 

with expedited oil and gas development must be fully accounted for as part of the NEPA process for the 

current push to develop oil and gas in the West. 

Response: A benefit-cost analysis would be required to fully analyze all the benefits and costs associated 

with a major oil and gas driven boom. Because the quantification of the non-market impacts are 

considered outside the scope of the analysis used for the RMP, all the benefits and costs cannot be 

quantified. Therefore, a benefit-cost analysis under these circumstances would be incomplete and will not 

A27-386 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

be done for this RMP. However, a narrative has been added to the analysis that points out the fact that 

even though there is a substantial tax and royalty revenue stream associated with a major oil and gas 

driven boom, there are also increased demands for services driven by that same boom.

Comment: The impacts on local economic diversity, the socio-economic risks to communities from 

cycles of boom and bust, as well as the economic instability associated with oil and gas development, 

must be analyzed and addressed as part of the NEPA process.)

Response: To accurately portray the issues associated with a boom and bust cycle, an enhanced narrative 

has been added to the socioeconomics section, which provides a robust discussion of what can be 

expected under each alternative with regard to depth and breadth of both the boom and the bust.

Comment: In order to fully comply with NEPA, the agency must include an analysis of the costs of 

implementing each alternative, which includes the costs of the mitigation plans contained within each 

alternative. These costs, must then be compared to the expected budget level to assess the probability of 

mitigation measures being fully implemented. The agency should therefore, as part of the NEPA process, 

include a reasonable budget limitation and evaluate a set of management alternatives that are constrained 

by that budget level. The agency must require adequate funding from oil and gas operators (in the form of 

reclamation bond) to insure that the reclamation is complete and adequate.

Response: A benefit-cost analysis would be required to fully analyze all of the benefits and costs 

associated with a major oil and gas driven boom. Because the quantification of the non-market impacts 

are considered outside the scope of the analysis used for the RMP, all the benefits and costs cannot be 

quantified. Therefore, a benefit-cost analysis under these circumstances would be incomplete and will not 

be done for this RMP. 

It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not directly 

authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and the 

methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted and where 

BLM has the authority to require mitigation.

Comment: E. The agency must analyze and discuss the socio-economic costs to communities associated 

the boom and bust cycles of oil and gas development. We formally request that the agency estimate the 

costs associated with oil and gas development to private landowners as part of the NEPA process. When 

estimating the benefits of an oil and gas development project the agency must show these benefits as net 

benefits rather than gross benefits. The increased public service and infrastructure costs associated with 

expedited oil and gas development must be fully accounted for as part of the NEPA process for the 

current push to develop oil and gas in the West. The impacts on local economic diversity, the socioeconomic risks to communities from cycles of boom and bust, as well as the economic instability 

associated with oil and gas development, must be analyzed and addressed as part of the NEPA process. A 

thorough plan for monitoring the socio-economic impacts of oil and gas development must be developed 

and implemented as part of the NEPA process and the implementation of all development and nondevelopment alternatives.

Response: A draft study has been prepared by ERG that addresses issues related to the oil and gas boom. 

This study has been referenced in the final RMP. A benefit-cost analysis would be required to fully 

analyze all of the benefits and costs associated with a major oil and gas driven boom. Because the 

quantification of the non-market impacts are considered outside the scope of the analysis used for the 

RMP, all the benefits and costs cannot be quantified. Therefore, a benefit-cost analysis under these 

circumstances would be incomplete and will not be done for this RMP.

Pinedale RMP A27-387 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Comment: The socioeconomic impact analysis minimizes the potential challenges facing Sublette and 

Sweetwater Counties to address population growth and impacts on housing and demands for public 

services associated with the level of oil and gas development outlined in the RMP. Section 4.10.6 Impacts 

Under Alternative 1 contains the following statements. “Continued oil and gas development would be 

expected to keep the existing oil and gas industry healthy, as well as to increase regional economic 

activity. However, since housing availability in the study area is limited and many of the oil and gas 

development jobs are seasonal or temporary, the population impacts would be lessened.” Then later 

“...the county’s population will increase steadily....a 73% increase over the 10-year period” (2005 to 

2015). Yet later “Activities within the planning area would impact local government services...and cause 

undue strain infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, and schools).” Finally, “Without additional housing 

availability, it would be difficult to increase the provision of these services...” While those statements 

acknowledge that impacts will occur, they fall short of capturing the magnitude, intensity and severity of 

impacts as required by NEPA. It overlooks issues such as the potential jurisdictional and timing mismatch 

between impacts on demands for services and revenue accrual, and challenges faced by service providers, 

such as recruiting and retaining employees to expand services. Furthermore, the discussion treats the 

seasonality of energy related development as a “mitigating” factor rather than a dimension of the 

development that imposes particular challenges for local businesses, governments and service providers 

The seasonality and rapid rise in local employment is clearly evident in the following graph (from The 

Sublette County Socioeconomic Analysis Advisory Committee www.sublette-se.org). The discussion also 

ignores the longer-term post-development implications for communities and economies. The prospective 

peaking and loss of population was recognized by the efforts of the PAWG-SETG referenced in the Draft 

RMP. Population projections developed by that group portray a peaking in resident population in about 

2015; that is, during the life of this plan. Additional insight regarding the long-term implications are 

evident in a series of economic and demographic projections developed by the Coalition of Local 

Governments using a version of the REMI Policy Insight model calibrated for a 6-county region of 

southwest Wyoming (Carbon, Fremont, Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater and Uinta) – Table A on the next 

page and the three figures on the subsequent page. 1 

Two sets of projections were developed using the REMI model; a baseline scenario assuming limited 

additional energy resource development but local participation in underlying national economic trends, 

and a with Pinedale RMP scenario. For this analysis, the “with RMP” scenario is generally based on 

Alternative 1 – No Action, using available data contained in the draft EIS, supplemented by generalized 

assumptions regarding the distribution of industry spending and non-resident labor. The projections do 

not represent the official or accepted projections of any of the member organizations of the Coalition of 

Local Governments. Rather, they are intended to be illustrative of reasonably foreseeable eventualities, 

the socioeconomic consequences of which should be addressed in the RMP/EIS. 

Response: The final EIS has been revised for consistency. A draft study has been prepared by ERG that 

addresses the issues related to the oil and gas boom. This study has been referenced in the final EIS. Also, 

an expanded narrative has been added to the document that summarizes the discussions BLM has had 

with the impacted towns and counties regarding their assessment of the infrastructure costs associated 

with oil and gas development. A discussion regarding the anticipated boom and bust cycle associated with 

each alternative has been added to the socioeconomic section in Chapter 4 of the final EIS. 

Comment: The peak projected impacts are: 

 9,150 jobs in Sublette County and 17,360 jobs across the 6-county region 

 7,514 residents in Sublette County and 15,210 residents across the region 

A27-388 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

The resulting projections illustrate the rapid growth associated with the proposed drilling program (results 

for the other alternatives would generally be similar), with growth in Sublette County even more rapid 

than anticipated by the PAWG-SETG. That growth and the demands on services would be in advance of 

the bulk of the ad valorem and other tax revenues associated with production. The results show that 

Sweetwater County will experience considerable employment and population effects as well. For the most 

part, the potential for such impacts is not addressed in the Pinedale RMP/EIS. Neither are the effects in 

Lincoln and Uinta counties (see Table A.) Although the scale of the impacts in the latter two counties are 

considerably lower than in Sublette and Sweetwater county, local governments and service providers, like 

those in Sweetwater county, will face additional demands without the benefits of the direct increases in ad 

valorem and sales and use tax revenues realized in Sublette County.

Response: A draft study has been prepared by ERG that addresses the issues related to the oil and gas 

boom. This study is referenced in the final EIS. Also, an expanded narrative has been added to the 

document that summarizes the discussions BLM has with the impacted towns and counties regarding their 

assessment of the infrastructure costs associated with the gas development. The three county study area 

comprised of Sublette, Lincoln, and Sweetwater counties will remain the same. 

Recreation, Wildlife, Habitat 

Comment: Not only would this destroy natural habitat, but it would reduce INCOME to the area because 

of a loss of recreation dollars. If you do any research, you will see that recreation revenue is greatly 

increasing in states such as Wyoming and Montana. Let’s not take livelihoods away from our fellow 

citizens!

Response: Sections 4.10 and 4.19.1 of the draft RMP identify recreation as a contributor to the local 

economy.

Comment: I own 2 hunting camps in the Greys River drainage in Lincoln County. The impact that is 

currently going on in Lincoln and Sublette County has been excessive. The mule deer are seriously being 

affected. The Wyoming Game & Fish has been reducing non-resident hunting licenses, which is affecting 

my ability to make a living.

Response: Impacts to wildlife from oil and gas development are described in Chapter 4. BLM does not 

have the authority to prohibit development of existing valid oil and gas leases.

Comment: If the BLM intends to prohibit all new ROWs in sage-grouse habitat and crucial winter range, 

it must clearly indicate its intent, and disclose the significant negative impacts closing the Pinedale 

Resource Area to new oil and gas development will have upon the local economy.

Response: No alternative analyzes prohibiting ROWs in sage-grouse winter concentration areas. 

Exclusion areas near leks are 200 feet in the Preferred Alternative of the draft RMP. Exception criteria are 

also provided in case that moving the ROW 200 feet is not possible.

Non-market Values 

Comment: We cannot drive into Pinedale without seeing haze in the sky. The town is no longer the town 

it was even five years ago. The pollution and social effects of the gas boom have changed the landscape, 

the skyline, and the quality of life.

Response: Air pollution is a non-market value that will decline with increased development. Increased 

crime, congestion, and other social ills are also likely and have been addressed in the draft RMP impacts 

analysis.

Pinedale RMP A27-389 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Comment: FROM A STANDPOINT OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND NATIONAL SECURITY, when 

will you recognize the VALUE of ecosystem services? I’m not asking for a miracle- for you to change 

your stance on the environment out of compassion, I’m asking you to consider the fiscal value of 

environmental services. Google Amory Lovins and Google Ecosystem services and work it out with 

insurance companies. There’s money, measurable value at stake here. Just do a cost/benefit analysis and 

consider the results.

Response: This comment is addressed in part in Chapter 4, which states: “Non-market values associated 

with BLM lands, such as recreation (for example, hunting, biking, hiking, and OHV use), viewsheds, 

wildlife habitat, water regulation, climate regulation, waste assimilation, hydrological function, and flood 

control (among many others), are expected to decrease under this alternative. Because the decreases in 

these values are often difficult to quantify, it is not easy to fully understand the tradeoffs inherent with 

significant oil and gas development. It could be that under Alternative 1, the societal non-market values 

could decrease more than the value of the oil and gas resource extracted.” A benefit-cost analysis has not 

been done, but if such an analysis were conducted, the non-market impacts would need to be quantified 

and included.

Comment: While I appreciate the fact that Americans are given the chance to speak up about their 

opinions concerning this atrocity, nature being further destroyed by man for the almighty dollar, I am 

concerned still that we will lose all that is natural in this world if we continue to tamper with this planet 

for our own gain. It is actually more of a gain for politicians and people that are involved in sucking the 

dollars of the American people away from them. This world has intrinsic value that does not have 

monetary value. The lives of all of the animals and plants do not have monetary value. We should value 

life above all things, especially since we have very little control over nature despite the fact that we 

continue to attempt to control and use it for our own gain. It truly is disgusting - how many people are 

actually in control of our natural resources? We all have to live on this earth, so why do only a few select 

people elected to determine the fate of us all? One can determine that this is the best way to run a country, 

but no one runs the world. We are all supposed to be keepers of this beautiful world and not only 

consumers. Thank you. 

Response: Non-market values are important. The impacts analysis in Chapter 4 recognizes the effects on 

non-market values. Other issues raised are outside of the scope of this study.

Comment: It is also not in the best interest of the long-term economy of a place like Pinedale that 

depends on a healthy natural ecosystem as the base of its economy. 

Response: Non-market values are important. The impacts analysis in Chapter 4 recognizes the effects on 

non-market values.

Comment: I am a native of Dubois, Wyoming and would like to express my concern for all of the gas 

drilling that is happening in this part of the country. The consensus in the community is that it is TOO 

MUCH. Our livelihood here is based on the outdoors and wildlife. Please listen to the input from people 

who live here, not just private interests looking to profit. 

Response: This comment is addressed under non-market values in Chapter 4. For example, the no action 

alternative includes the following narrative stating that “Non-market values associated with BLM lands, 

such as recreation (for example, hunting, biking, hiking, and OHV use), viewsheds, wildlife habitat, water 

regulation, climate regulation, waste assimilation, hydrological function, and flood control (among many 

others), are expected to decrease under this alternative. Because the decreases in these values are often 

difficult to quantify, it is not easy to fully understand the tradeoffs inherent with significant oil and gas 

A27-390 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

development. It could be that under Alternative 1, the societal non-market values could decrease more 

than the value of the oil and gas resource extracted.”

Comment: I live here because of the amount of public land surrounding the Pinedale area. I will never be 

able to afford a large piece of property so I depend on our public lands for recreation, visual inspiration 

and mental health.

Response: Non-market values such as visual inspiration and mental health are covered, in part, in 

Chapter 4, which recognizes the effects on non-market values in the EIS.

Comment: 4. There should be a complete accounting of the cost of this change in the RMP, and 

subsequent permitting procedures and monitoring costs (state, federal, and county) of the various 

resulting projects. Will there be a net gain to taxpayers? We feel that our tax dollars should be spent on 

better things, and not things that disturb us. 

Response: To fully assess all the benefits and costs, the non-market impacts would need to be quantified, 

which is beyond the scope of this analysis.

Comment: 2. Non-market values The DEIS states: “Because the decreases in these non-market values 

are often difficult to quantify, it is not easy to fully understand he tradeoffs inherent with significant oil 

and gas development” (p. 4-113). This statement is patently false. Non-market values have been measured 

and quantified for decades. There is a well established body of economic research on the measurement of 

non-market values, and the physical changes (decreases in the source of these values) brought about by 

“significant oil and gas development” are very easy to measure quantitatively. 

One of the most important purposes of public lands, including those of the BLM in the Pinedale area, is 

the provision of public goods. Non-market goods often fall into the category of public goods. These are 

things like outdoor recreation opportunities, clean air, clean water, the preservation of wilderness and 

other undeveloped areas that would be underprovided if left entirely to market forces. The BLM has an 

inherent responsibility to see that these public goods are provided and in quantities that meet the demand, 

not just of local residents, but of every U.S. citizen. 

Non-market values are important to the residents of the Pinedale area. In a recent study (McLeod et al. 

1998), Sublette County residents were asked why they chose to live in the area. The top three responses 

(in order) were “scenery,” “recreation” and “lifestyle.” All of these are non-market values and the BLM 

lands in the Pinedale area are without a doubt an important (if not the most important) source of these 

values.

Response: To quantify the non-market impacts, a non-market study using, for example, CVM would be 

required, which is beyond the scope of this effort. The final EIS has been revised to include an enhanced 

narrative that subjectively describes the importance of non-market impacts in the context of an intense oil 

and gas boom and a discussion of the anticipated impact to non-earned income and the second home 

market associated with each alternative. 

Comment: The BLM has generally failed to adequately recognize, consider and analyze non-market 

values in its socio-economic analysis.

Response: To quantify the non-market impacts, a non-market study using, for example, CVM would be 

required, which is beyond the scope of this effort.

Pinedale RMP A27-391 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Comment: We request that the agency include both market and non-market costs and benefits in order to 

fully account for all the impacts of potential development. 

Response: To quantify the non-market impacts, a non-market study using, for example, CVM would be 

required, which is beyond the scope of this RMP. In the absence of a CVM study, a comprehensive 

narrative has been added to the final EIS that subjectively describes the importance of non-market 

impacts in the context of an intense oil and gas boom.

IMPLAN 

Comment: The assumptions and methods presented in Appendix 26 leave many unanswered questions. 

First, how exactly were the oil and gas multipliers adjusted? The wording implies that these national 

multiplies may have actually been adjusted upward for the Pinedale area: “These estimates were than 

adjusted to account for self-employment...” (p. A26-1). No evidence is presented that would support a 

large amount of self-employment in the oil and gas industry, and it is widely understood that the national 

level multipliers are actually already too large to accurately portray the impact of any industry in a small 

remote area such as the study area. The actual multipliers used to project the impacts of all the industries 

should be presented and any adjustments that have been made to these should be explicitly detailed, 

including the numbers upon which such adjustments were based. 

Appendix 26 also states: “The IMPLAN sectors associated with recreation were not adjusted because it 

was believed [emphasis added] that they were a reasonably accurate representation of the sectors found in 

the study area.” (p. A26-1). Believed by whom? Based on what? This assertion is completely 

unsubstantiated, and we feel represents the chronic under-analysis applied to any sector that isn’t oil and 

gas! If any sector in the study area might require some additional effort in order to effectively predict 

impacts it would be the recreation sector which is at best poorly modeled in IMPLAN. Please provide 

details upon which this assumption is based, or preferably, conduct better analysis of this important 

sector. 

The discussion of the reasons for only including non-resident recreation activity as contributing to the 

local economy further highlights the need to collect and analyze the overall impact associated with the 

existence of recreation opportunities on BLM lands in the study area. While resident recreation 

participation may not represent “new” money flowing into the economy the way non-resident spending 

does, this is a very narrow view of the role that these lands play in the local economy. Residents may, and 

studies have shown do, move to areas such as the Pinedale area because of the presence of the 

surrounding public lands. This is due to many factors – including both the scenery or backdrop they 

provide and the recreation opportunities. These new residents bring to the area needed economic diversity 

as many are entrepreneurs who start new businesses in their communities. These businesses are a source 

of jobs and income and may be harmed by the proposed accelerated oil and gas drilling. And in fact in 

Pinedale it has been well documented that non- oil and gas businesses are being harmed by the current 

level of drilling. It is unlikely that increased drilling will improve things. New residents who earn nonlabor income (retirees and investors) are also attracted to areas with protected public lands for similar 

reasons as entrepreneurs. These people also bring new money to the local communities, income which 

can often serve as a source of capital for new entrepreneurial endeavors spurring a cycle that can 

potentially improve the diversity of the economy. The over-dependence on oil and gas drilling will stifle 

this diversity, and it is well documented that areas with diverse economies outperform those with a singleindustry focus.

Response: The Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) model used in this analysis was calibrated by 

the University of Wyoming to represent the study area. But as pointed out in this comment, there are other 

important considerations that are not fully reflected by IMPLAN runs. Most notably, the non-market 

A27-392 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

impacts are not captured in the IMPLAN analysis. To quantify the non-market impacts, a non-market 

study using, for example, CVM would be required, which is beyond the scope of this effort. 

The final EIS has been revised to include an enhanced narrative that subjectively describes the importance 

of non-market impacts in the context of an intense oil and gas boom and a discussion of the anticipated 

impact to non-earned income and the second home market associated with each alternative. The Sonoran 

Institutes publication titled “Public Lands Conservation and Economic Well-Being” is referenced and 

summarized to point out the importance of public lands, especially protected public lands, to the overall 

economic well-being of communities in the West. 

Comment: 1. IMPLAN We are concerned that the use of the IMPLAN (or any economic base) model to 

predict the impacts to the Pinedale socioeconomic region of influence will lead to inaccurate and 

incomplete at best and at worst, biased estimates of the potential impacts. While the IMPLAN model can 

be useful as a tool to develop static analyses of the regional economy, the agency and local communities 

must be aware of the shortcomings and poor track record of the model as a predictive tool. As Haynes and 

Horne (1997) note: “Where the economic base approach gets into trouble is when it is used 

inappropriately as a tool for planning or predicting impacts (emphasis added) of greater than one year in 

duration; a snapshot of current conditions tells little about the form a region’s future economy may take.” 

There are several issues with the assumptions on which economic base models such as IMPLAN are 

based. First is the incorrect assumption that an economy is static (i.e. it does not change). IMPLAN also 

assumes that there will be no changes in relative prices, no input substitution or technological change in 

the production processes (for example increasing technology has resulted in fewer and fewer workers per 

unit of output in the oil and gas industry), no labor mobility, no change in products or tastes, no regional 

migration, and no changes in state and local tax laws. The assumption of no labor mobility is particularly 

important for oil and gas drilling proposals, since it draws into question the issue of local versus non-local 

job creation. Workers are mobile, especially in the oil and gas industry as crews move from drill site to 

drill site. There is no guarantee that the oil and gas jobs projected by IMPLAN will be filled by local 

workers. And in fact, there is considerable evidence that workers in non-local crews fill most, if not all 

the direct jobs in oil and gas drilling. 

Also IMPLAN models do not consider the impacts of many important variables that affect regional 

growth in many rural communities. Many Westerns communities like the ones in the Pinedale area have 

economies that are dependent on local amenities like high quality hunting, fishing and recreational 

opportunities, open space, scenic beauty, clean air and clean water, a sense of community, and overall 

high quality of life. These are not measured or accounted for in IMPLAN models. However these 

amenities are associated with attracting new migrants as well as retaining long-time residents and are also 

clearly likely to be negatively impacted by an increase in oil and gas drilling in the Pinedale. 

IMPLAN completely fails to account for retirement and investment income. Many residents of Western 

communities (both long-time and new) earn retirement and investment income. An analysis of economic 

trends will show that retirement and investment income is becoming increasingly important to rural 

economies of the West. 

Economists with both the Forest Service (Hoekstra, et. al 1990) and the Office of Technology Assessment 

(1992) concluded that while IMPLAN is useful for appraising the economic impacts of a management 

plan, the model is insufficient for evaluating the overall economic impacts for communities. These 

impacts (as has already been seen in the Pinedale area) can be large and must be measured accurately. 

And according to the OTA (1992), IMPLAN has an additional shortcoming for assessing community 

impacts: the economic data used to construct IMPLAN do not provide comparable details for all sectors 

of the economy. While economic data for oil and gas is classified as a separate manufacturing industry, 

Pinedale RMP A27-393 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

recreation is scattered among a variety of industries generally classified in services and retail, with some 

in transportation. The ease of data acquisition for estimating oil and gas impacts combined with the 

difficulty of estimating the impacts of recreation and tourism underscores the potential bias favoring oil 

and gas development in IMPLAN modeling. 

The concern over the accuracy of models like IMPLAN combined with concern over the use of these 

models for planning, suggests that it is not only inappropriate but a disservice to rural communities to rely 

on IMPLAN to estimate the economic impacts of public land management alternatives on rural 

communities. 

Response: While there are shortcomings with IMPLAN, it is commonly used for impact analysis work. 

Other federal agencies, such as the United States Forest Service, use it for their impact assessment work. 

Also, the University of Wyoming has addressed the issue of a transient oil and gas workforce and 

adjusted the output of the model to account for non-local labor. Nonetheless, using IMPLAN as the sole 

indicator of impacts can be misleading because it does not include the non-market impacts. And although 

the quantification of non-market impacts are considered beyond the scope of this effort, a new narrative 

has been added to the final EIS that subjectively addresses this issue.

Comment: We recommend that the BLM conduct a more thorough analysis of the socioeconomic 

impacts associated with the RMP Alternatives. The attached document – “Socio-Economic Framework 

for Public Land Management Planning: Indicators for the West’s Economy” provides details of the 

methods and analyses that we feel are necessary for a complete assessment of the impacts to the Pinedale 

area. 

We recommend that the BLM stop relying on IMPLAN and other models derived from economic base 

theory. However, if planners in the Pinedale Field Office continue to use IMPLAN, the model must 

account for non-labor income, as well as income from hunting, fishing, and recreation. It must also 

account for the fact that most drilling is completed by non-local crews. The analysis must account for 

increasing labor productivity and hence declining jobs per well drilled. We also insist that if the BLM 

uses IMPLAN that the agency fully discuss the assumptions, the shortcomings, and the risk and 

uncertainty due to the poor track record of the IMPLAN model in planning efforts. We also request that 

all data and multipliers used to project local impacts be made public. 

More thorough and accurate data on the impact of non-oil and gas sectors must be used in order to make 

an equitable comparison of the alternatives. Some sources of data on the impacts of the recreation sector 

include Kaval and Loomis 2005 and Rosenberger and Loomis 2001. The BLM must measure and account 

for changes in non-market values associated with the dramatic increases in oil and gas drilling proposed 

in this RMP. To do otherwise omits a very important socioeconomic impact that is the direct result of 

management actions. Peer reviewed methods for quantifying both the non-market and market costs of 

changing environmental quality have been developed by economists and are readily applicable to the 

present case. For a catalog of these methods see Freeman (2003). For a complete socioeconomic analysis, 

BLM should adapt these methods to conditions in the Pinedale area to obtain a complete catalog of 

estimates of the economic consequences of the proposed Alternatives.

Response: The final EIS has been revised to include additional socioeconomic impact analysis.

Comment: We recommend that the agency stop relying on IMPLAN and other models derived from 

economic base theory. If planners use IMPLAN, the model must account for non-labor income, as well as 

income from hunting, fishing, and recreation. If the agency uses IMPLAN, it must also account for the 

fact that most drilling is completed by non-local crews. If the agency uses IMPLAN, the analysis must 

account for increasing labor productivity and hence declining lobs per well drilled. We insist that the 

A27-394 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

agency fully discuss the assumptions, the shortcomings, and the risk and uncertainty due to the poor track 

record of the IMPLAN model in planning efforts. We also request that all data and multipliers used to 

project local impacts be made public. We also request that the agency complete a trend analysis of 

regional jobs and income - to provide a better and more complete understanding of their economic past 

and their economic future. We formally request and recommend that the agency analyze economic trends 

using the Economic Profile System model developed by the Sonoran Institute in cooperation with the 

Bureau of Land Management (available at http://www.sonoran.org).

Response: While there are shortcomings with IMPLAN, it is commonly used for impact analysis work. 

Other federal agencies, such as the United States Forest Service, use it for their impact assessment work. 

Also, the University of Wyoming has addressed the issue of a transient oil and gas workforce and 

adjusted the output of the model to account for non-local labor. The Economic Profile System (EPS) and 

Economic Profile System for Communities (EPSC) were used for this analysis and files of these profiles 

are available for review. It should be noted that both EPS and EPSC are not designed to do impact 

analyses. Moreover, in an area like Sublette County that is undergoing rapid change driven by intense 

energy development, the data in both EPS and especially EPSC is dated.

Comment: B. The plan must reflect an accurate and realistic projection of jobs and income associated 

with the oil and gas development proposal. We formally request that the agency stop relying on IMPLAN 

and other models derived from economic base theory. If the agency planners use IMPLAN: The agency 

must fully discuss the assumptions, the shortcomings, and the risk and uncertainty due to the poor track 

record of the IMPLAN model in planning efforts. We request that all data and multipliers used in the 

socio-economic impact analysis, including those used in 1MPLAN be made public. The model must 

account for non-labor income, as well as income from hunting, fishing, and recreation. The model must 

also account for the fact that most drilling is completed by non-local crews. The analysis must account for 

increased labor productivity and hence declining jobs per well drilled. The agency must also complete a 

trend analysis of regional jobs and income - to provide a better and more complete understanding of their 

economic past and their economic future. We formally request and recommend that the agency rely on 

trend analysis of income and employment for the counties impacted using the Economic Profile System 

(EPS) developed by the Sonoran Institute in cooperation with the BLM (available at 

http://www.sonoran.org).

Response: While there are shortcomings with IMPLAN, it is commonly used for impact analysis work. 

Other federal agencies, such as the United States Forest Service, use it for their impact assessment work. 

Also, the University of Wyoming has addressed the issue of a transient oil and gas workforce and 

adjusted the output of the model to account for non-local labor. EPS and EPSC were used for this analysis 

and files of these profiles are available for review. But it should be noted that both EPS and EPSC are not 

designed to do impact analyses. Moreover, in an area like Sublette County that is undergoing rapid 

change driven by intense energy development, the data in both EPS and especially EPSC is dated.

Clustering Drilling, Phased Development 

Comment: Clustering also benefits communities by spreading the extraction process over time so that the 

workforce becomes more invested in the area. There is a lower population need for the work force and it 

would remain a “level” number. This would give the county the ability to catch up with infrastructure to 

serve the boom as well as our longer-term recreation-based economy.

Response: Clustering wells would not reduce the number of wells drilled or the workforce required, but 

would reduce surface impacts of gas development. Clustered developments are being implemented where 

appropriate in the planning area, but it is not possible to have cluster drilling until enough straight holes 

have been drilled to define the field.

Pinedale RMP A27-395 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Comment: The benefits of clustering the impacts of energy development and phasing their progression 

northward are many. The primary benefit to the area is a local economic stabilization of spreading the 

extraction process out over time so that the workforce becomes more invested in the community. There is 

a lower population need for the work force and it would be a ‘level’ number. This would give the county 

the ability to catch up with the infrastructure needed for this development as well as our longer term 

recreational economic future. 

Response: Social effects are addressed in Sections 4.10.4 and 4.10.5 of the draft RMP. Clustering wells 

would not reduce the number of wells drilled or the workforce required, but would reduce surface impacts 

of gas development. Clustered developments are being implemented where appropriate in the planning 

area.

Tourism 

Comment: Moreover, your draft RMP/EIS does not appear to have given sufficient consideration to the 

economic impacts that cultural tourism brings to the area. White energy development has certainly 

brought economic advancement to the area, the complete dominance of this industry has also brought 

significant social disruption. In addition to the degradation, in air quality suffered as a result of energy 

development, Pinedale has also suffered degradation in its quality of life and availability of community 

services. These negative effects could potentially be offset by a greater emphasis on cultural tourism. In 

the late 1990s, Pinedale hosted a national fur trade symposium which brought over one hundred people 

into the community to share their fascination with this history and to learn more about the nearby 

resources. Today, it is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine the town hosting such an event since 

temporary lodging facilities are nearly always fully occupied by energy field workers. 

Response: Intensive energy development has the potential to impact tourism. The extent of that impact 

could be estimated but would require a study designed to quantify the non-market affects of a major 

energy driven boom. Such a study has not been conducted. 

Comment: The resulting impact of lack of lodging due to energy field workers on one of Pinedale’s 

premier cultural attractions, the Museum of the Mountain Man, has certainly been significant. A 

designated Rural Historic Landscape to tell the fascinating story of the cross-cultural fur trade society 

could help to 1) diversify the Sublette County economy; 2) promote increased recreational opportunities; 

3)fulfill the BLM’s multiple use mandate; and, 4) support existing resources in the communities of 

Pinedale, Big Piney, Boulder, and Daniel. 

Response: Intensive energy development is impacting tourism. Visitor data from the Museum of the 

Mountain Man would provide some quantification of at least some of the impacts to tourism. Such data 

were included in the final EIS.

Comment: For many years my family & friends have visited this country on white-water raft trips. As 

many as 16 of drive & fly into Wyoming & Utah, doing business with local outfitters, motels, airport and 

sporting goods stores. I estimate collectively we spend around $10,000 each time we come, and a group 

of us come almost every other year, to the upper Green, and into Utah through Desolation Canyon. There 

are many other groups like ours. 

Response: The impact on tourism has been considered, but it is unclear what the long-term impact will 

be, given the fact that there is a negative effect on non-market values under intense gas development.

Comment: 8. What about tourism and real estate values? Those assets should not be sacrificed at the altar 

of energy development. There are other economic interests in this area, and unfortunately they are not 

compatible with energy development.

A27-396 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

Response: To the extent possible, quantitative data was included to show the impacts associated with 

rapid oil and gas development. With regard to real estate values, all indications point toward increased 

values produced by increased demand as new people move into the area. However, the demand for second 

homes is less clear in the midst of an energy driven boom. A narrative has been added to the 

Socioeconomics section of Chapter 4 describing the anticipated impact to real estate values and second 

home sales.

Taxes 

Comment: 4. There should be a complete accounting of the cost of this change in the RMP, and 

subsequent permitting procedures and monitoring costs (state, federal, and county) of the various 

resulting projects. Will there be a net gain to taxpayers? We feel that our tax dollars should be spent on 

better things, and not things that disturb us. 

Response: Total estimated tax royalties are in Table 4-14 of the draft RMP.

Comment: The State of Wyoming and the Federal government receive vast royalties and tax revenue 

from energy development. With an estimated 20 to 25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas recovery possible 

within the Pinedale Anticline, local governments and the U.S. Treasury stand to receive substantial 

revenue gains. The money is used for schools, libraries, and medical services. This increases the quality 

of life in Wyoming and this must be recognized within the RMP.

Response: Table 4-14 shows the taxes and royalties anticipated for each alternative. How these revenues 

are spent is subject to local, state, and national budgeting decisions, and those allocations sometimes 

change. Moreover, additional tax revenues and royalties do not automatically translate into increases in 

the quality of life. What is considered a benefit to one person may very well be considered a negative 

impact to another. 

Comment: We request that the agency determine all applicable Federal, state and local tax laws 

(including exceptions and reductions) and that these laws and regulations be used to make realistic and 

accurate estimates of net tax revenues from oil and gas production. As discussed above, revenue estimates 

must be made based on economically recoverable resources rather than technically recoverable - and must 

include the environmental and community costs from drilling and production.

Response: The tax revenues have been estimated and reported in the draft EIS. The impact analysis for 

socioeconomics has been revised in the final EIS. 

Mitigation 

Comment: It basically ignores the effects of the massive development already underway and only speaks 

about potential new development without taking the whole scenario into consideration Mitigation 

proposals do not occur in the areas which are really being affected by drilling, road building, and 

increased traffic.

Response: The RMP is a management plan that looks at Reasonable Foreseeable Development scenarios. 

Therefore, it does include the development underway and also looks at new development. Mitigation is 

considered as impacts occur and when BLM has authority to require mitigation.

Comment: the draft document makes no reference to what should be done to mitigate the significant 

impacts associated with existing and expected levels of development. My office has been working with 

the Sublette County commissioners and local Pinedale officials to address the specific challenges facing 

this area of the state and sought technical guidance in order to quantify the socioeconomic impacts that 

Pinedale RMP A27-397 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

attend the development taking place in Sublette County. As these impacts become better defined, I ask 

that state and local cooperators be able to further inform the socioeconomic impacts of the activities 

contemplated in the RMP and that the BLM work with us to contour appropriate mitigation strategies 

going forward.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted.

Comment: Activity plans are non-existent in this RMP. There are no plans to effectively mitigate the 

impacts to wildlife or socio-economics described from oil and gas activities. 

Response: Big Piney/La Barge has an activity plan. Other development is being conducted under sitespecific EISs. It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted.

Comment: In regards to mitigations and restrictions, I believe the BLM must weigh the net loss of 

revenue. We should balance other resource needs but understand all economic impacts. For these reasons, 

I strongly believe Alternative 3 is too restrictive.

Response: Loss of revenue is included in the draft RMP socioeconomic impact analysis for Alternative 3. 

Comment: It’s interesting and somewhat discouraging to read on p. 4-129 that while the BLM’s RMP 

acknowledges a probable 181% increase in crime to be expected from 2006 - 2020, there is absolutely no 

mitigation required nor planned to address this direct impact to our community.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted and 

where BLM has the authority to require mitigation.

Comment: Based on NEPA requirements, and standard cost benefit analysis practice (see Boardman et 

al. 1996 ), it is evident that the DEIS is inadequate in its economic analysis. Standard cost benefit analysis 

seeks to estimate positive and negative effects resulting from a proposed action, and in particular, the 

magnitude of effects. To accomplish this, effects must be identified and the relationship between effects 

must be disclosed (cumulative effects). This information can then be used to estimate the value of 

outcomes and mitigation techniques (Hahn et al. 1996). Furthermore, NEPA requires disclosure of the 

effects to the human environment including health and welfare, community concerns and safety.

Response: Under NEPA, BLM is required to do impact analysis, which differs from cost-benefit analysis. 

It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not directly 

authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and the 

methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted and where 

BLM has the authority to require mitigation. 

Comment: The preferred alterative proposes to make one million acres available for oil and gas leasing 

and development (p 2-20) resulting in significant effects to the economy of the affected region. The DEIS 

includes only a brief outline of the assumptions used for the IMPLAN analysis in Appendix 26. In chapter 

4, the BLM recognizes that economic impacts will “likely occur” to employment and income, tax 

revenues, demand for housing and government services as well as the social fabric of communities, yet 

A27-398 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

fails to provide detailed information. To fully disclose the economic effects and gain an appreciation for 

mitigation needs, a more comprehensive treatment is necessary. Full disclosure should include: 

• Changes in population over the planning horizon, 

• Changes in demographics including age and ethnicity, 

• Employment by sector, 

• Income by sector, 

• Average earnings by sector, 

• Tax revenue by municipal, state and federal jurisdictions, 

• Direct, indirect and induced effects by sector, including multipliers, 

• Increased housing needs for owned and rental units, 

• Demand for recreation, 

• Demand for forest resources, 

• Anticipated trends in crime 

• Infrastructure requirements according to population, 

• Current utilities (sewage, power, gas, communications, etc.) 

• Increased demand for utilities, 

• Transportation corridors (current and future demand), 

• Social services: current and future demand (schools, police, fire, medical). 

The DEIS only briefly describes qualitative effects and does not discuss the mitigation of negative effects.

Response: A draft study has been prepared by Ecosystem Research Group that addresses the issues 

related to the oil and gas boom. This study is referenced in the final EIS. It is not possible to design 

specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not directly authorize any on-the-ground 

activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and the methods to be used, must be tied 

to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted and where BLM has the authority to 

require mitigation.

Comment: G. The agency must correctly account for budget constraints and fiscal realities. In order to 

fully comply with NEPA, the agency must include an analysis of the costs of implementing each 

alternative, which includes the costs of the mitigation plans contained within each alternative. These costs 

must then be compared to the expected budget level to assess the probability of mitigation measures being 

fully implemented. The agency should therefore, as part of the NEPA process, include a reasonable 

budget limitation and evaluate a set of management alternatives that are constrained by that budget level. 

As part of the fiscal analysis of the plan alternatives, the agency must realistically assess the bonding 

needs for the oil and gas development proposed. Operators must be required to post adequate bonds to 

ensure that acceptable reclamation and remediation are conducted.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted and 

where BLM has the authority to require mitigation.

Comment: 7. Page 2-14, third bullet, and elsewhere, states that “Compensation mitigation practices must 

last as long as the impacts are expected to occur.” Should not such mitigation, be it improvements, 

activities or other practices, be permanent or last at least as long as impacts are expected to occur, and 

subject to monitoring to insure effectiveness of the proposed mitigation?

Pinedale RMP A27-399 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Response: Mitigation would be monitored for effectiveness. Many mitigation projects, such as vegetation 

treatments, would not have “permanent” benefits because vegetation communities would not be static but 

would change over time. 

Air Quality 

Comment: 3. Air quality and agricultural losses. The socioeconomic analysis is inadequate because it 

fails to consider the potential of economic losses in the agricultural sector resulting from increases in 

ozone levels during the growing season. BLM analysis (Supplement Ozone Modeling Analysis, pp. 1-4) 

focuses entirely on whether predicted 1st -4th ranked ozone concentrations are in compliance with the 

NAAQS and WAAQS standards (Supplement Ozone Modeling Analysis, p.1). Important as these 

standards are, the highest concentration levels do not provide sufficient information to assess the 

economic effects of possible increases in ozone concentrations during other times of the year. These 

effects can only be estimated in when ozone modeling analysis also investigates in detail changes in 

average and maximum ozone concentrations during other times of the year under a variety of alternatives. 

This will especially be the case for agriculture, an economic and culturally important economic sector in 

Wyoming. 

It has been well established in the scientific literature that elevated levels of ozone have adverse effects on 

crop yields for a large variety of crops, including alfalfa and other forage crops (Lessor et al. 1990); 

Benton et al. 2000). The economic consequences of these adverse effects have been estimated and shown 

to be in the billions of dollars at the national level (Adams et al. 1986; Murphy et al. 1999). Moreover, 

Murphy et al.’s (1999) findings show that even small (10 percent) reductions in ozone will have large 

economic benefits. By symmetry, it is possible that small increases in ozone will have large economic 

costs. 

Alfalfa and forage (hay) crops are the single most important agricultural crops in the Wyoming counties 

of Sublette, Sweetwater, and Lincoln and are among the crops whose yields are most strong affected by 

increases in ozone (Lessor et al. 1990). In fact, in 2005, these counties cultivated 201,000 acres of hay 

and produced 324,000 tone of hay with, with a total value of production of $29 million (National 

Agricultural Statistics Service 2006). 

Response: The final EIS has been updated to include analysis of impacts to vegetation from increased 

concentrations of ozone. However, because the level of increase of ozone concentration cannot be 

determined, the degree of impact to vegetation and thereby to the local economy cannot be determined.

Comment: From these findings it is clear that potential percentage losses from increases in ozone are 

large. For the agricultural sectors of Sublette, Sweetwater and Lincoln counties, the potential economic 

impacts are also relatively large. If Lessor, et al.’s (1990) results can be applied to these three counties, a 

60 percent increase in ozone would lead to agricultural value of production losses between $.24 million 

and $.74 million for alfalfa and between $.03 million and $1.2 million for other forage. Moreover, Lessor 

et al.’s (1990) empirical results suggest that some losses would also occur for percentage increases in 

ozone of less than 60 percent. Moreover, the example above of economic losses would represent a lower 

bound for three reasons. First, the example is based on the assumption that alfalfa and forage production 

is affected, but not the quality of what is produced. Yet, there is emerging evidence that nutritional value 

alfalfa also deteriorates as ozone levels increase. Muntifering et al. (2006) conclude: “The RFV (relative 

feed value) of the lower foliage of most alfalfa plants was reduced by exposure to ozone, depending on 

the number of hours exposed to ozone per day, and the number of days of consecutive exposure (p. 2)”. If 

increased ozone results in decreased crop quality there will be additional economic losses associated with 

increased ozone because decreases in quality will result in decreases in price. Second, the example applies 

only to alfalfa and forage crops, but there is emerging evidence that ozone also adversely affects wild 

plants. Davison and Barnes (1998) note that “many wild species have been shown to be at least as 

A27-400 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

sensitive to ozone as crops that show significant yield losses...(p. 135)”. If this result holds for the plant 

species occupying the range and forest lands in Sublette, Sweetwater, and Lincoln counties, increased 

ozone levels would lead to a deterioration of opportunities for rangeland grazing of livestock and wildlife. 

This could lead to economic losses in the livestock and recreation sectors. Third, the example did not 

consider other crops grown in the area, including the 8,200 acres of barley in Lincoln County

Response: The final EIS has been updated to include analysis of impacts to vegetation from increased 

concentrations of ozone. However, because the level of increase of ozone concentration cannot be 

determined, the degree of impact to vegetation and thereby to the local economy cannot be determined.

Comment: In order to fully assess the potential for economic losses to the agricultural sector, BLM 

should conduct a thorough ozone modeling analysis which investigates in detail potential changes in 

average and maximum ozone concentrations during all times of the year under a variety of alternatives. 

BLM should consider potential losses due to increased air pollution in the value of agricultural production 

and deterioration in the productivity and health of rangeland and forest resources. 

Response: The final EIS has been updated to include analysis of impacts to vegetation from increased 

concentrations of ozone. However, because the level of increase of ozone concentration cannot be 

determined, the degree of impact to vegetation and thereby to the local economy cannot be determined.

Other Economic Concerns/Issues 

Comment: I therefore strongly oppose this Alternative and support instead Alternative 3 with the 

following revision included in its final form: • Consider other means of economic gains for multiple use 

regulations such as small-scale commercial logging to thin out beetle-kill trees and reduce need for 

massive wildfire suppression and management, allowing other forms of employment for residents and 

other means of revenue gathering.

Response: Operations such as small scale logging are provided for in the draft RMP in the Forestry 

alternatives.

Comment: Section 3.10 should include a discussion of the fiscal conditions of local governments in 

study area. At a minimum, the discussion should address revenues by major source and expenditures by 

major function for the three counties and major communities. Key trends in those parameters should also 

be described, particularly those related to recent and ongoing energy resource development. The 

discussions of the distribution formulae for the various severance and federal mineral royalties should 

note that distributions to local governments are presently capped statutorily, and hence local governments 

are unlikely to participate from the increases in production related severance and royalty revenues. The 

fiscal discussion should recognize that a substantial portion of the projected ad valorem tax revenues 

would be generated by the mandatory taxes for public education. Tax revenues generated by these levies 

are subject to “recapture”, that is, remittance to the state to support public education statewide and 

consequently, do not accrue to the local school districts. In Sublette County the public education levies 

account for about 75 percent of the total countywide tax levy (and revenues). As a result, the level of ad 

valorem tax revenues accruing to the local school districts, and to the county to fund the additional 

demands for services is substantially less than is implied by Table 4-14. Finally the fiscal discussion must 

acknowledge that local government and education expenditures will increase dramatically in response to 

anticipated economic and population growth and that there are likely to be jurisdictional mismatches and 

time-lag issues between demands for expenditures and revenue accrual. The current discussion includes 

the heading Impacts on Tax Revenues, but ignores the corollary effects on expenditures do not accrue to 

the local school districts. 

Pinedale RMP A27-401 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Response: BLM will leave the release of the fiscal condition of local governments to local governments. 

It is the purpose of the RMP to disclose impacts related to different management alternatives. 

Seasonal Restrictions 

Comment: Most importantly wrong with this RMP is the seasonal restriction portion. By creating a short 

window for activity in an area, BLM will essentially be creating a transient workforce through the 

implementation of this guideline. This type of employment pattern will be detrimental to what would 

have otherwise been a economic stimuli for Wyoming with the employment opportunities energy 

development will create. Secondly, these restrictions will severely reduce the production output needed to 

be profitable for the companies in the area.

Response: Since a large percentage of the drilling crews are from out of state there is already a transient 

workforce. Seasonal restrictions do increase the cost of drilling, but experience shows us that companies 

have historically been able to operate at a profit even with seasonal restrictions. 

Comment: I am also deeply concerned about the restrictions especially in Alternative 3. Especially the 

seasonal restrictions will have a negative impact on the development of the area. They will mean a 

seasonal workforce, which is known to bring a lot of problems with it.

Response: The alternatives and analysis provided in the draft RMP are appropriate for a land use planlevel document. 

Comment: Revised history. Table A26-2 presents total well projections by alternative. It is interesting to 

note that the data for past years (2001-2005) actually varies with alternatives. Why would the number of 

plugged and abandoned wells in these prior years change with management alternatives that have not 

been carried out? 

Shrinking tax revenues Please explain how the projected tax revenue for Alternative 3 can be 81% of that 

for Alternative 4, when Alternative 3’s projected value of production is 95% of Alternative 4’s. It would 

appear that the BLM has either deliberately inflated the projected revenue to the local government for 

Alternative 4 or deliberately deflated the estimates for Alternative 3 (Table 4-14). In either case this 

represents a bias in the analysis that favors oil and gas drilling to the exclusion of other multiple uses of 

these public lands. Combined with the failure to address the considerable costs of the proposed oil and gas 

drilling this indicates and incomplete and inadequate analysis of the impacts of the proposed 

management. 

Response: A formula developed to predict the probable percentage of plugged and abandoned wells for 

each alternative was mistakenly applied to the past years 2001-2005. The table has been updated in the 

final EIS to show the actual number of wells plugged an abandoned during the period 2001-2005. 

The tax analysis has been updated. The tax revenue in Alternative 3 is now 90% of that of Alternative 4, 

which is consistent with the value of production. 

Comment: From the aspect of gauging socioeconomic impacts from the various RMP alternatives, Table 

A26-2, in Appendix 26, is one of the most important pieces of information given in the entire document. 

As we all know, the labor-intensive nature of the mining industry ensures that mining activities within the 

size and scope of the Pinedale RMP will have a huge affect on socioeconomic impacts in the region. 

Perhaps the two biggest factors within natural gas mining development that influences socioeconomic 

impact are the number of wells and the pace of development. The only place in the RMP that I found that 

A27-402 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Socioeconomics 

addresses' this is Table A26-2. Table 4-13 gives a yearly average, but Table A26-2 provides a very useful 

trend analysis. 

How, exactly, were these well counts formulated? What scenarios were used to make these predictions? 

Same goes with Table 4-13. This must be explicitly identified if these tables are to be at all useful. What 

is included in this well count and what is not? 

Response: The methods and assumptions used to formulate the RFD can be found in Reasonable 

Foreseeable Development Scenarios for Oil and Gas Development in the Pinedale Field Office prepared 

by BLM’s Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG). The 2,969 wells in 2006 as 

shown on page 4-113 of the draft EIS is inclusive of the producing wells that existed at the end of 2001 

and those wells developed from 2001 to 2006. Table A26-2 does not include the wells the existed in 2001 

and only projects the number of wells anticipated between 2001 and 2020. Based on WOGCC databases, 

about 1,750 producing wells existed at the end of 2001 and 925 producing wells were developed between 

2001 and 2006. Table A26-2 has been revised to show that 925 well were developed from 2001 through 

2005. Protections for years 2006-2020 have also been revised. Tables 4-13 and A10-1 have the correct 

projections. The text has been corrected in the final EIS. 

It needs to be reiterated that the projected well numbers are projections based on a number of 

assumptions. The actual number of wells may vary from the projection. It is the actual number of wells 

developed that will ultimately become part of the tax bases. As stated above, the projected wells numbers 

are BLM’s best estimate of what may occur. They are not an implicit determination of what will actually 

occur. 

Comment: Other comments and apparent discrepancies: The monetary value listed in Table 4-14 for 

severance taxes under Alt. 3 seems inconsistent with the total value of production in Table 4-13 and the 

ad valorem values in Table 4-14. The average numbers of wells drilled per year in Table 4-13 appear to 

represent drilled and completed, and hence producing wells. The P&A wells are excluded. That 

distinction should be noted. The number of federal and the numbers of state and private wells in 

Alternative 2, Table 4-13, i.e., 377 and 15 wells, respectively, appear inconsistent with the values shown 

for earnings and numbers of jobs. Given the historical commuting workforce linkages between Sublette 

and Teton counties, a discussion of the rationale for excluding Teton County from the analysis should be 

included in 3.10. Recent, ongoing and future energy resource development in Sublette County clearly 

results in indirect effects on Teton County. Section 3.10.2 includes the statement “Prior to the last 2 

years, ranching was the main industry for the area.” Is this characterization reasonable given the 

subsequent discussion of tourism and energy development? It appears that this statement may have come 

from a dated source. The description of the history of communities in Section 3.10.2 warrants additional 

revision. Examples of poorly written narrative include: “Industries supporting the town today include 

ranching, oil and gas extraction, and tourism, and a small general aviation airport serves both Marbleton 

and Big Piney.” “Formed by the railroad and coal mines, Rock Springs offers” and “There are also many 

recreational amenities located in Green River, including...and Flaming Gorge Reservoir” Page 3-61 

includes the following: “It is likely that employees are commuting to the economic study area to support 

the oil and gas boom, but report their employment and earnings where they live.” If that is true, many of 

the costs created by the temporary influx of workers are being borne by the residents without the usual 

offsetting revenues created by workers permanently relocating to the region. This statement is overly 

broad and does not accurately characterize the relationship between energy resource employment, 

demands for services, and the costs and revenues associated there. Employment data presented in Tables 

3-11 and 3-12, as do the earnings data in Tables 3- 13 and 3-14, refer to non-comparable data series. That 

fact should be noted in the footnotes on page 3-60 lest the reader get the impression that total regional 

employment declined by nearly 10,000 jobs and earnings declined by nearly $200 million between 2004 

and 2005. Table 3-11 appears to combine from different sources and possibly includes estimated data. 

Pinedale RMP A27-403 
Appendix 27—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

The results are a set of inconsistent data that do not accurately reflect the composition of employment in 

the region. For example, the entries for the mining industry show only 2,669 jobs with employment 

declining over the period 2001 through 2004. Table 3-13 is expressed in 1,000s of dollars. Table 3-16 

shows the ad valorem mineral valuation, not tax revenues. The discussions of the distribution formulae 

for the various severance and federal mineral royalties should note that distributions to local governments 

are presently capped statutorily, and hence local governments are unlikely to participate from the 

increases in production related severance and royalty revenues. The fiscal discussion should recognize 

that a substantial portion of the projected ad valorem tax revenues would be generated by the mandatory 

taxes for public education. Tax revenues generated by these levies are subject to recapture, that is, 

remittance to the state to support public education statewide and consequently, do not accrue to the local 

school districts. In Sublette County the public education levies account for about 75 percent of the total 

countywide tax levy (and revenues). As a result, the level of ad valorem tax revenues accruing to the local 

school districts, and to the county to fund the additional demands for services is substantially less than is 

implied by Table 4-14. Table 3-19 contains data entry and/or mathematical errors, see for example, the 

row entries for 2001 doesn’t sum, and the 2003 entry for Sweetwater County appears to be the total PILT 

entitlement acres not PILT payments. The discussion of nonlabor income on pages 3-72 and 3-73 should 

be revised. The narrative suggests that nonlabor income has been declining in Sublette and Lincoln 

counties. Nonlabor income has declined as a share of the total, but increased in absolute amounts. The 

discussion fails to recognize the underlying role of the dramatic increases in labor earnings, tied to energy 

development, as a key contributor to the observed declines in relative income shares from different 

sources. Table 3-22 and associated discussions should note that the rental housing vacancy rates are 

survey-based. Consequently, the universe of reporting units varies over time such that year-to-year 

comparisons don’t necessarily reflect true changes in either the number or availability of units. We agree 

that worker safety is an important issue and that the oil and gas industry exposes workers to potential 

safety hazards and risks. Nonetheless, we question the validity of the contention that seasonal limitations 

on drilling impose greater risks during rig mobilization than a normal rigging up or down, or that safety is 

compromised (see page 3-83). The discussion of Hunting and Wildlife Viewing under 3.9.2 cites the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department as a source of hunting data. Can some type of estimate of the level 

of big-game hunting occurring in the region be provided? The potential effects of the various alternatives 

on the availability of hydrocarbons and the costs to producers and consumers are likely to be non-existent 

or very small -- 2nd bullet on page 4-47. The last sentence in that bullet should be revised to read, “This 

could result in some very limited, not readily measurable or quantifiable, increases in costs to producers 

and consumers, the incidence of which would primarily occur outside of the study area.” The tone of the 

assessment suggests that any oil and gas resources not developed during the life of this plan somehow 

become lost or irrecoverable. In fact, future revisions of the RMP could facilitate such recovery. One 

result of this perspective is to value near-term recovery over long-tem recovery, thereby diminishing the 

potential contributions of energy resource development to long-term economic sustainability of our 

communities. This trade-off in our economic futures should be described in the assessment. The heading 

for Table 4-6 should probably include the term “Subsurface” and the percent change values shown in 

Table 4-6 should probably be preceded by a negative sign since the point of comparison is Alternative 2 

compared to Alternative 1. Similar changes should be made in the corresponding tables for Alternatives 3 

and 4. 

Response: The tax analysis has been updated in the final EIS and is now consistent with the value of 

production differences among the alternatives. A new table in Section 4.1.5 has been included in the final 

EIS which include both completed wells and plugged and abandoned wells. The discussion in 3.10.2 has 

been changed in the final EIS to reflect the considerable energy development. The community 

descriptions have been revised in the final EIS. 

A27-404 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Soils 

Soils 

General Comment Responses: No GCRs are associated with this category.

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes 

Comment: PAGE: 4-131, SECTION: 4.11.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Compacted soils are less 

accommodating to plant roots, and seed germination is difficult in such soils.] (STRIKEOUT) 

EXPLANATION: Not so true as to be an assumption for EIS.

Response: This assumption is intended to supplement the previous assumption regarding soil 

compaction. No change is recommended.

Comment: PAGE: 4-131, SECTION: 4.11.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Soil productivity could be 

reduced by downwind and downslope contamination from eroded soils.] (STRIKEOUT) 

EXPLANATION: Eroded soils are not contaminated.

Response: BLM agrees. “Contamination” has been changed to “deposition” in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 4-138, SECTION: 4.11.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: RECONCILE WITH 4-131 

(natural erosion is .1 T / year) This alternative would provide for approximately 10,500 acres of forest and 

woodlands to undergo various treatments such as thinning, hazardous fuels reduction, and commercial 

harvest activities. Erosion rates following treatments or harvest activities would be 0.02 ton per acre per 

year, resulting in approximately 210 tons of soil erosion. Erosion rates could be higher along skid trails 

and landings (0.22 ton per acre per year), and there could be some soil compaction associated with these 

facilities. EXPLANTION: Erosion estimates inconsistent

Response: BLM agrees. The assumptions were confusing. See the updated text in this section of the final 

EIS.

Comment: Because the BLM has recently proposed to allow year-round drilling in the PRA, it is 

particularly crucial for the new RMP to contain clear, binding standards to prevent damage to saturated, 

hydric and erosive soils. The 1988 RMP required “seasonal closures due to saturated soil conditions.... 

(At certain times of the year, use will be precluded until soil moisture is such that the use or activity will 

not result in degradation of the soil resource and watershed condition. These closures occur 

predominately in the spring and autumn.)” 1988 RMP at 19. This direction should be retained and 

strengthened in the new RMP.

Response: BLM agrees. Soil moisture/rutting depth stipulations should be a part of the RMP. The RMP 

must include a stipulation or reference stating that activities occurring in wetlands, including casual use, 

must be in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Comment: To reduce surface water degradation from soil erosion, the new RMP should follow the 

direction in the 1988 RMP requiring soil management practices to be based on “soil survey data, and ... be 

related to the soil characteristics such as the steepness of slopes, the length of slopes, and soil chemistry 

and composition.” 1988 RMP at 19. Problematic types of soils should be identified, and specific criteria 

should be developed for these soil types, based on slope steepness, proximity to water, slope length, soil 

chemistry, vegetation, etc.

Response: BLM agrees that it needs to have a slope restriction stipulation. Other stipulations, such as 

slope length, soil chemistry, composition, erosiveness, proximity to water, vegetation composition, etc., 

Pinedale RMP A27-405 
Appendix 27—Soils Final EIS 

should be part of the permitting process since they are site- and project-specific. Soil survey data is 

needed. To this end soil survey efforts are currently underway in Sublette County.

Comment: PAGE: 4-2, SECTION: 4.1.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Update data for soil surveys 

and forest stands EXPLANATION: BLM needs to update data or provide that planning decisions will be 

revised upon more complete data.

Response: Soil survey activities are currently being conducted in Sublette County by NRCS.

Comment: PAGE: 4-131, SECTION: 4.11.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Vegetation removal and 

surface disturbance particularly unmaintained dirt roads are the primary cause of accelerated soil erosion 

on the uplands. EXPLANATION: Failure to maintain dirt roads is a major source of nonpoint source 

water pollution. While the sentence is technically true it is not accurate.

Response: While it is true that unmaintained dirt roads do contribute significantly to accelerated erosion, 

the assumption is more directed to ongoing and future surface disturbing activities rather than two-track 

roads. As for two-track roads, these were not considered in this analysis.

Comment: PAGE: 4-132, SECTION: 4.11.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Wind erosion can impact 

soil productivity in a similar manner as water erosion. [Since no technologies exist to model wind erosion 

on rangelands, this analysis will be limited to impacts resulting from water erosion.] (STRIKEOUT) 

EXPLANATION: NRCS does modeling so not accurate to say no model.

Response: It is true that wind erosion models are available; however, the current model used on 

croplands, Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS), is not designed for use on rangelands. The 

assumption has been changed in the final EIS to reflect that no similar technologies exist to model wind 

erosion on rangelands.

Comment: PAGE: 4-132, SECTION: 4.11.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Short-term erosion impacts 

depend on the length of time it takes for the disturbed area to become revegetated, generally a 0- to 5-year 

time frame.] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Not accurate nor true.

Response: BLM disagrees. However, this assumption has been further clarified. The choice of this time 

frame is an assumption used in the analysis to reflect the time a disturbed site takes to become stabilized 

with a self-sustaining, perennial vegetative community. Most sites should revegetate in less time than 5 

years, and annual weeds will certainly establish well before 5 years. Actual time frames for the 

reestablishment of a perennial vegetation cover vary considerably depending on variables such as seedbed 

preparation, total precipitation, effective precipitation, slope, aspect, elevation, soil texture, soil organic 

matter, water holding capacity, etc.

Fragile, Unique, or Saline Soils 

Comment: The 1988 RMP made clear Soap Holes Basin was not the only area with highly saline soils - 

that area was only cited as one example of lands requiring special management attention. The revised 

RMP DEIS does not map saline soils in the PRA even though such soils are widespread. The only 

reference to saline soils I could find in the RMP DEIS referred to Soap Holes Basin. RMP DEIS at 4-46. 

Response: Saline soils are included with other soil types that are fragile, highly erosive, or otherwise 

difficult to reclaim. Language has been added to the Management Actions in the final EIS under Soils, 

Objective 2 to clarify this. Maps are not presented because the specific soil information is not available.

A27-406 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Soils 

Comment: The BLM indicates on page 2-132 that additional mitigation measures will be imposed on 

lands within the Blue Rim, Milleson Draw, and the Long Island Watershed. Unfortunately, the BLM has 

not mapped or identified said watersheds in the RMP DEIS. Although Map 3-13 identifies watersheds in 

the resource area, Blue Rim, Milleson Draw, and the Long Island Watershed are not identified on the 

map. The BLM should provide a map detailing these areas in order for APC to understand how its 

operations may be impacted.

Response: The Blue Rim and Milleson Draw areas are not watersheds, but geographic areas with unique 

soil characteristics. The Blue Rim is a long ridge located south of Wyoming Highway 351 and north of 

Alkali Draw. Milleson Draw is a tributary of the Green River, entering from the east about 5 miles south 

of Big Piney. The Long Island Watershed has been identified in the final EIS.

Off-highway Vehicles 

Comment: Disclosing how many acres of land in the PRA would be open to ORV use is not the same the 

same thing as analyzing how much soil erosion and surface water degradation would result from that use. 

The DEIS doesn’t even provide any information on how many ORVs would be using those acres, much 

less describe the soil conditions in those areas or how much sediment would be loosened and eroded by 

storm and snow-melt run-off.

Response: It is beyond the scope of this document to analyze the impacts to the proposed off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) areas in the detail suggested by the reviewer. The erosion figures generated by the Water 

Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) are admittedly broad-brush. By using the same assumptions for each 

alternative, and varying acres of disturbance for each alternative, the erosion numbers generated disclose 

to the public the relative impacts to the soil resource. In no way should the erosion estimates generated by 

WEPP be considered hard, firm numbers. In addition, these are average annual erosion rates, spread over 

a 50 year simulation period.

Comment: PAGE: 4-139, SECTION: 4.11.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE The designation 

of 3,110 acres for three [two] (STRIKEOUT) OHV Open areas would have direct impacts on the soil 

resource. Soil erosion rates are predicted to increase by a magnitude of 10 times above the natural rate of 

erosion, resulting in the loss of 1,275 tons of soil per year. These calculations may actually underestimate 

the potential for erosion since they do not include gully formation along trails and roads. The objective to 

mitigate erosion impacts along transportation corridors would be of immediate benefit the soil resource. 

EXPLANATION: Model summary does not appear to be correct.

Response: Erosion rates for OHV areas have been recalculated to better reflect impacts. Average erosion 

rates increased from 0.41 tons/acre/year to 2.47 tons/acre/year. The areas open to unregulated OHV use 

have been revised in the final EIS. 

WEPP Model 

Comment: The DEIS states that the WEPP model was used to estimate soil erosion rates. However, the 

DEIS does not explain the assumptions and methodology used in this model. Courts have held that where 

an agency relies on a complex predictive model the assumptions and methodologies must be disclosed for 

public review. Moreover, any substantive criticisms must be acknowledged and addressed. The DEIS’s 

failure to present this key information is not only contrary to 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24, it also prevents the 

public from evaluating the veracity of the DEIS soil erosion predictions. And the estimates appear to lack 

scientific credibility in several respects. For instance, while the DEIS states that “[e]rosion rates are 

inherently difficult to predict” and that the WEPP model accuracy is +/-50%, the tons/year erosion rates 

are nevertheless quoted to 6 significant figures. In addition, the predicted combined erosion rate from 

roads amount to only 2% of that from pipelines. This is clearly in error. There would be 2,168 miles of 

Pinedale RMP A27-407 
Appendix 27—Soils Final EIS 

new roads in Alternative 4, which means BLM is assuming the average erosion rate per mile of road 

would be only be about one half ton (under 1200 pounds) per year. Expressed differently, BLM is 

assuming 31/2 ounces of sediment would erode from each linear foot of new road over an entire year. 

And this completely ignores existing roads. Accounting for the existing roads, BLM’s modeling would 

appear to be based on the assumption that only about 2 ounces per year of sediment would erode from 

each linear foot of road. A single rainstorm could erode more than this from the prismed edges of dirt 

roads, and additional sediments would erode from the channelized run-off along the borrow strips. 

Frequent vehicle traffic would also erode dirt roads by converting the roadbed into airborne particulate 

(dust).

Response: Methodologies and assumptions are explained on pages 4-131- 4-132; Sections 4.11.1 and 

4.11.2 of the draft EIS. Erosion figures generated by WEPP could have been rounded, as seems to be 

suggested by the reviewer; however, the decision was made to use the actual figures generated by WEPP. 

Road erosion rates were recalculated in the final EIS using native surface, 300-foot length, and 15-foot 

road width. Erosion rates for reclaimed pipelines were recalculated by adjusting cover values to better 

reflect successful reclamation. This analysis is for new roads only.

Comment: Soil erosion is one of the most significant threats to surface water quality in the PRA. There 

are numerous sources of erosion including (but not limited to) roads, well pads, pipelines, facility 

construction, ORV use, logging, livestock grazing, storm water discharge, bank scour from water 

discharges, and natural erosion from undisturbed areas. Previously, I discussed some concerns related to 

the WEPP modeling and the RMP DEIS’s failure to adequately assess the cumulative impacts of past, 

present and future sediment loading. Those comments focused on quantities of sediment. However, I did 

not discuss potential impacts from the sediment loading. Among other impacts, sediment discharge into 

surface waters can result in increased turbidity, increased filtration costs for downstream users, siltation of 

spawning gravels and pool bottoms, creation of unnatural sand bars and obstructions in streams, changes 

in stream channel morphology including channelization in sediment accumulations, and changes in 

benthic and aquatic plant communities. Some eroded soils accumulating in drainages and intermittent 

stream courses may not reach perennial surface waters for years. Thus, to properly assess impacts from 

soil erosion it is necessary to treat this as a long-term problem spanning decades. 

Response: The erosion figures generated by WEPP, and the assumptions used in the analysis, are 

admittedly a broad-brush approach to analyzing impacts to the soil resource. The intent was to analyze 

and compare surface disturbing activities for each alternative. By using the same assumptions for each 

alternative, and varying acres of disturbance generated through the Reasonable Foreseeable Scenario, the 

erosion numbers thus generated, disclose to the public the relative impacts to the soil resource by 

alternative for a range of surface disturbing activities. In no way should the erosion estimates generated 

by WEPP be considered hard, firm numbers. In addition, these are average annual erosion rates, spread 

over a 50-year simulation period.

Comment: PAGE: 4-132, SECTION: 4.11.2, EXPLANATION: BLM needs to contact NRCS because 

discussion not accurate.

Response: The erosion figures generated by WEPP, and the assumptions used in the analysis are 

admittedly a broad-brush approach to analyzing impacts to the soil resource. The intent was to analyze 

and compare surface disturbing activities for each alternative. By using the same assumptions for each 

alternative, and varying acres of disturbance generated through the Reasonable Foreseeable Scenario, the 

erosion numbers thus generated, disclose to the public the relative impacts to the soil resource by 

alternative for a range of surface disturbing activities. In no way should the erosion estimates generated 

by WEPP be considered hard, firm numbers. In addition, these are average annual erosion rates, spread 

over a 50-year simulation period.

A27-408 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Soils 

Reclamation, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Comment: PAGE: 2-141 SECTION: Revise or delete. [e. Interim reclamation standards would be 

developed to reduce soil erosion on a project or site specific basis. Emphasis would be placed on areas 

adjacent to waters and wetlands.](strikeout) RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: Question 

the merit of interim reclamation. In many cases interim reclamation causes greater soil disturbance, 

expenditure of funds for relatively little return on investment. Emphasis makes no sense. If prohibit 

structures in areas adjacent to water or wetlands then there should be nothing to reclaim. 

Response: It is not possible to completely prohibit development of facilities, particularly linear facilities, 

in wetland and riparian areas. Emphasis on reclamation in these areas is reasonable. Designing interim 

reclamation on a site- or project-specific basis would ensure that it is applied in situations where 

appropriate.

Comment: Soil Erosion. The soil erosion monitoring items - for uplands and on stream banks and 

floodplains - appear to be well designed. However, as noted above, the action trigger specified for the soil 

erosion on stream banks appears to have been transposed with that for depth to water. The method of 

monitoring is also ambiguous. The table indicates the sampling method could be either by visual 

observation or by erosion pins. The former is highly subjective, and even a trained observer could 

overlook significant erosion. Certainly, visual observation would not be sufficient to accurately gauge 

“soil loss in tons per year” as required by the applicable unit of measure. The sampling frequency is also 

once per year, which may be inadequate to correct soil problems before they become severe and 

irreversible. I recommend surveying disturbed sites twice per year (spring and fall) and also surveying 

immediately after a 10-year storm even has occurred in the area.

Response: Soil erosion monitoring would be conducted to the level that BLM is able. Soil erosion data 

would also be obtained from other sources.

Comment: The action trigger for soil erosion on stream banks and floodplains suffers from the same 

problems. I believe trigger proposed for this item is when there is “Accelerated stream bank soil loss” 

(which is actually listed for the item associated with depth to water). Again, what erosion rate would need 

to be observed before action would be taken? Would there be different thresholds for different stream 

channel morphologies and flow regimes? Would there be different thresholds for stream banks versus 

floodplains? And what corrective action would be taken when a threshold is exceeded?

Response: The soil erosion monitoring items have been amended in Table A11-1 in the final EIS.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include the following: 

• Monitoring of soil fungi and microorganism communities in areas where produced waters may be 

discharged onto soils (including along road margins where produced water is used as a dust 

suppressant). 

• Estimated total annual soil erosion (in tons per year) occurring in the PRA from natural causes 

and from BLM-authorized activities (including ORV use and livestock). 

• Potential soil contamination beneath reclaimed well pads and pits (some contaminants may not 

enter ground waters immediately due to reduced infiltration through compacted soils under well 

pads).

Pinedale RMP A27-409 
Appendix 27—Soils Final EIS 

Response: An analysis of “potential” soil contamination beneath reclaimed well pads is beyond the scope 

of the RMP/EIS document. This type of analysis is more appropriate at the project level.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include the following: 

• The amount of contaminated soil and/or water that is removed from the PRA each year and taken 

to permitted hazardous waste disposal facilities.

Response: Most permitted landfills accept petroleum contaminated soils (PCS). It is not possible to 

predict the amount of contaminated soils that might be generated from year to year. 

Comment: The RMP should require monitoring, testing and certification of hazmat release remediation 

efforts. It is not enough to simply bring a backhoe to the site of a spill, scoop out some soil near the 

surface that looks contaminated and call the job done (as is typically being done under the existing RMP). 

The soils in the PRA are sandy and have high infiltration rates. In most places there is little or no clay 

content to adsorb or slow contaminant in-filtration. Given the wide variety of harmful chemicals being 

used in the PRA (including benzene), the RMP must provide assurances spills will, in fact, be completely 

cleaned up. After soil is excavated and before the site is covered over, several soil and/or water samples 

should be collected and tested at an approved independent lab. Only after the lab certifies the samples are 

free of contamination should the spill be declared fully remediated.

Response: BLM agrees. The reviewer is correct in pointing out BLM’s responsibilities in the event of a 

hazardous substance release. BLM has procedures in place to address spills of hazardous wastes and 

substances. Furthermore, BLM is aware of the responsibilities and liabilities under RCRA and CERCLA.

Comment: To the greatest extent practicable, require drilling, completion, stimulation, dust suppression, 

and reclamation to use treated produced water rather than surface waters or Class I, II or III ground 

waters.

Response: This suggestion has been added to the list of BMPs used in gas field and other developments.

Comment: Map 7 in the 1988 RMP also depicted the Tip Top Watershed as a “crucial watershed” 

requiring special management direction for “reducing erosion and channel degradation”, in this 

watershed. 1988 RMP at 21. The revised RMP DEIS also fails to map erosive soils. Without this 

information there is no basis for determining whether activities contemplated under the new RMP would 

adversely impact surface waters through soil erosion.

Response: Site-specific analyses, mitigation measures, and monitoring plans will be developed at the 

project level. Several reclamation projects have been completed in the Tip Top area since finalization of 

the 1988 RMP. Specific soil information is not available.

Grazing 

Comment: PAGE: 4-133, SECTION: 4.11.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Grazing animals, especially 

wild horses, [Livestock grazing] (STRIKEOUT) would impact the soil resource. Wild horses, wildlife, 

and livestock [Livestock] (STRIKEOUT) remove herbaceous vegetation to such an extent that existing 

vegetation is not [that would otherwise] (STRIKEOUT) be available to protect the soil surface from 

raindrop impact and overland flow. EXPLANATION: Impact statement inaccurate and shows bias 

against grazing. Cattle and sheep to not remove all vegetation while horses do.

A27-410 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Soils 

Response: BLM disagrees. This statement was not intended to single out livestock grazing. Livestock do 

remove some, though not all, herbaceous vegetation. The statement was further qualified by stating that 

natural or background erosion rates generated by WEPP are minimal, and this background erosion rate is 

taken into account by stating that these are grazed ecosystems. There are no wild horses in the resource 

area.

Comment: PAGE: 4-138, SECTION: 4.11.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: In those areas where 

grazing animals (livestock wild horses, wildlife) congregate, particularly during wet soil conditions, there 

could be some soil compaction. [Livestock] (STRIKEOUT) Trails often develop along fence lines and in 

the vicinity of water developments and have the potential to concentrate water flow and create gullies. 

Implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health (USDI, BLM 1997) would help ensure 

proper management of grazing animals [livestock] (STRIKEOUT) and serve to minimize impacts on the 

soil resource. EXPLANATION: One-sided and biased.

Response: BLM disagrees. This statement is not intended to single out livestock grazing. BLM manages 

land uses that do have impacts to the soil resource. Livestock trails do have the potential to concentrate 

water flow and create gullies.

Comment: PAGE: 4-138, SECTION: 4.11.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: The impacts from 

[livestock] (STRIKEOUT) grazing animals would be the same as under Alternative 1.

Response: The intent of this statement was specifically to compare impacts of livestock grazing between 

the two alternatives. No change is recommended. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-131, SECTION: 4.11.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Soil compaction is 

considered to be a localized impact common to activities such as livestock wildlife or wild horse 

concentration areas, particularly during times when soils are wet; and high-traffic areas such as dirt roads, 

walking paths, hiking trails, [or OHV] (STRIKEOUT) areas. EXPLANATION: Less true for OHV, bias 

against grazing comes through here as well.

Response: This assumption is not intended to single out livestock grazing, and although it is true that 

OHV use is less likely to compact soil, no change is recommended.

Pinedale RMP A27-411 
Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management Final EIS 

Transportation, Access, and Travel Management 

General Comment Responses: 

Comments: 

• OHV use is increasing rapidly with significant unacceptable impacts on wildlife, livestock forage 

and soils. The Draft RMP proposes to categorize areas by designation of the acceptable levels of 

OHV use. However, the plan lacks a commitment to the necessary level of enforcement. It simply 

anticipates and implicitly accepts the impacts on livestock grazing management. 

• Ensure that closed routes will not be used through restoration of the route, gates and/or 

enforcement with personnel on the ground. 

• Identify roads that harm wildlife, or increase likelihood of noncompliance with conservation 

mandates, then close, reroute, or limit use to reduce their impacts.

Response: Transportation planning efforts subsequent to the RMP/ROD would address the concerns you 

identified. 

Comments: 

• While town officials have sought solutions, including vehicle weight limits for the road, a 

workable solution has not been found and BLM-approved field traffic, continually drives through 

residential areas of Pinedale. In fact, the Wyoming Department of Transportation has increased 

its highway patrol presence in the Pinedale area, to identify the increasing number of illegallyweighted trucks that are degrading area roads faster than the usual rate of wear and tear. Traffic 

impacts to surrounding communities in the RMP region need to be specifically addressed in the 

RMP. 

• The Town of Pinedale requests that BLM policy managers consider very carefully all traffic 

impacts to the Town of Pinedale with enormous growth of the energy industry in our immediate 

area. As we are working to address these traffic impacts, it is requiring years to adequately 

address these changes, since our main street is also a state highway. Slowed down gas field 

development will give Town officials more time to implement greater safety standards for our 

town’s main roads. Without slowing down the pace of development, the Town of Pinedale is left 

to deal with the boom town impacts before we can implement the proper changes. 

• Prohibition of weight limit (trucks) on Tyler Avenue. The width on Tyler Avenue, the street 

cross-section (pavement and sub base depth) and bridges (structure) are limited to a smaller axle 

weight than what is currently being imparted on the road. Developing additional cross-section on 

the road with strengthening the bridges and changing them (width) would not be feasible due to 

the limited ROW from close proximity of private properties for such expansion. There or 

alternate routes for these trucks must be implemented. A comprehensive plan of existing network 

of roads and proposed road should be incorporated within the EIS. In addition an emergency 

action plan should also be put into the EIS for emergency situations when trucks overturn and 

spill their cargo (waste products), fuel oil etc to properly manage and contain such environmental 

contamination. The plan should detail contaminated soil removal new soil introduction and 

restoration of vegetative matter. 

A27-412 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management 

Response: BLM is unable to incorporate comprehensive transportation planning into the RMP at this 

point. Transportation planning will be completed within 5 years of completion of the RMP revision. An 

alternate route for truck traffic around the town of Pinedale is currently being processed.

Unique Comments: 

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes 

Comment: We also remain concerned that the BLM has failed to adequately address the direct, indirect, 

and cumulative impacts associated with roads and the development of more of them associated with the 

rampant oil and gas development the preferred alternative proposes, and we believe the analysis of 

impacts regarding OHV/ATV and other motorized use have not been fully disclosed.

Response: BLM has determined that the impact analysis is adequate. The draft EIS Preferred Alternative 

analyzes oil and gas development that might occur, given the provisions of that alternative. It does not 

propose a certain level of development. 

Comment: Page Number and Issue: 2-65, 2-92, 2-135 and other pages within the draft: Transportation 

planning would be completed within 5 years of implementation of the RMP. Recommendations: USQ 

requests that language be added that allows for amendments to the plan to accommodate advances in 

technology.

Response: Transportation plans would determine which roads would be available for use and which 

would be closed and reclaimed. It is unlikely that new technology would require changes in designated 

roads; but the transportation plans would be updated when necessary. 

Comment: Item: Page 2-122, Section 2.5.5, Management Objectives and Actions BLM’s objective is to 

“Provide opportunities for geophysical and geologic data acquisition while mitigating impacts on 

important resource values. Actions: 

a. Geophysical data gathering methods that involve only casual use of the surface (as defined in 43 CFR 

§3150) would be permitted throughout the planning area. 

b. Vehicle-based geophysical activities would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 

c. The use of surface and/or above-ground (Poulter shot) explosive charges for geophysical exploration 

would be assessed case by case. 

d. Geophysical projects, including projects proposed in areas with an NSO restriction, would be analyzed 

and mitigation developed on a case-by-case basis.” Comment: Since it is stated in (a.) that “geophysical 

data gathering methods that involve only casual use” shall be permitted, (b.), (c.) and (d.) are redundant 

and should be deleted. As currently stated, the methods to be used are adequately defined within the 

definition of “casual use”. 

Response: Not all geophysical data gathering methods involve only casual use.

Comment: PAGE: 2-135, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add management goal: Coordinate with state 

and local governments in meeting transportation needs EXPLANATION: Recent development has seen 

little to no coordination with local governments on transportation issues. As a result, there are a number 

of adverse impacts that could and should be avoided but are not due to this complete lack of coordination. 

As one example, the additional traffic to carry produced water into other counties for disposal is tearing 

up county roads, leaving incredible trash and dust, and there is no mitigation or funds that the county can 

access to rebuild the roads. BLM criteria ignore county interests, such as keeping county off of the JIO 

even though this development has significant impacts on county land use, law enforcement and other 

Pinedale RMP A27-413 
Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management Final EIS 

jurisdiction issues. This attitude needs to change and transportation is one of the major issues where this 

needs to occur. 

Response: Cooperation with local governments is outlined in Section 2.3.17; it is not necessary to repeat 

it in each resource section of the plan.

Comment: PAGE: 2-135,RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE b. Access to county and state roads 

will be built to conform to [would be minimized and consolidated where practicable to enhance] 

(strikeout) safety and reduce [minimize] (strikeout) conflict points. Ingress and egress to state highways 

and county roads would be coordinated with the state highway department and counties, respectively. 

EXPLANATION: BLM has no authority to limit access to state and county roads. The counties object to 

the current practice of building frontage roads for gas field development that increases dust, particulate, 

and surface disturbance.

Response: At the request of the Wyoming Department of Transportation, this action was included to 

ensure that BLM roads that access state and county highways are constructed in a safe manner. BLM has 

authority to require this.

Comment: PAGE: 2-136, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [f. New developments would be designed to 

minimize the number and miles of new roads, habitat fragmentation, and main access points to new 

fields.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: This does not belong here as it involves temporary roads for gas 

development, not long-term transportation needs. 

Response: The action is appropriate as presented in the draft EIS. It is reasonable to expect gas field 

roads to be in place for 50 years or more.

Comment: PAGE: 2-147, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: k. Transportation planning in close 

coordination with local governments would be implemented to avoid creating unusable islands of wildlife 

habitat and proliferation of access points (patch size varies by species). EXPLANATION: Any 

transportation planning needs to be done in close coordination with local governments. Failure to do so in 

the past has created unnecessary hardship and adverse impacts on communities and government services.

Response: BLM planning guidance and CFR 8342.2(a) directs BLM to incorporate public participation 

in the transportation planning process. The cooperating agencies and public would be included in the 

travel management planning process as described in Appendix 17.

Comment: PAGE: 4-140, SECTION: 4.12.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE The program 

responds to requests for authorization from other programs or outside entities and facilitates close 

coordination with state and local governments with respect to anticipated traffic conditions and design. 

EXPLANATION: While BLM has generally failed to coordinate with local governments, e.g. failure to 

consult and coordinate with county on transportation issues or to include local agencies in JIO, this 

objective needs to be in the RMP.

Response: To change this sentence as stated does not make sense in this context. Coordinating with state 

and local governments, with respect to anticipated transportation needs, is a good idea. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-140, SECTION: 4.12.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add Garbage and litter 

along road sides will increase with additional inhabitants and/ or workers. Traffic on local government 

roads will continue to increase beyond existing capacity of the roads and current road damage will be a 

worsening problem due in large part to BLM restrictions on disposing of produced water on public lands 

and limited housing in the area. EXPLANATION: There has been an exponential increase in trash and 

A27-414 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management 

BLM programs do nothing to address this problem. It points out yet another need for better coordination 

in transportation and other development issues. BLM policies continue to put tremendous burdens on 

county roads and transportation planning gives no thought let alone effort to mitigate the adverse impacts. 

This situation needs to change.

Response: The first part of this statement is correct in that additional garbage and litter will increase with 

additional traffic and traffic will continue to increase. See the updated text in the impacts common to all 

sections for transportation.

Comment: PAGE: 4-14-, SECTION: 4.12.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Temporary or 

transient workers have no stake in community and have shown greater tendency to litter. 

EXPLANATION: Recent years have seen exponential increase in garbage and waste along with roadside 

litter. A major factor is the number of transient workers rather than resident workers. This situation is 

largely the product of BLM restrictions on construction that preclude development of a community. 

Instead, most of the workers are transients with no tie or pride in the community. The long term 

environmental, social and economic impacts to the community are significant and unaddressed.

Response: Temporary workers are not responsible for the dumping that has been occurring on the public 

lands for the last 100 years. It is not responsible to assign blame in this direction. Increased population 

causes increases in a number of social ills, but it is not reasonable to assume that all negative impacts are 

due to one group of individuals. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-141, SECTION: 4.12.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD In order to reduce 

surface disturbance and establishment of dual roads, BLM will consult with county and cities when 

designing roads including implementing previous policy of limiting access to arterial roads. 

EXPLANATION: Another poor BLM policy calls for limiting access to arterial roads. This creates 

parallel road systems with more surface disturbance. Other limits on roads create increased risk of 

accidents. The county maintenance load has also increased and the reduced road conditions in turn 

increase the risk of accidents.

Response: With the assumption that an arterial road is a “paved” state or county road, it is at the direction 

of the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) that we limit access.

Comment: PAGE: 4-144, SECTION: 4.12.1, EXPLANATION: BLM needs to completely revise how it 

handles transportation issues and how it relates to local governments. As noted above, seasonal closures 

affect transportation access, putting greater burden on county roads during the construction season. There 

is a need for a bridge for the Jonah Field road. There is one paved road between Jonah and Mesa. County 

lacks consistent and direct funding for roads that are adversely affected by development. As one example, 

the Jonah field development has caused significant damage to existing roads. There are few sources of 

funding for reconstruction and maintenance due to Wyoming system of revenue distribution and they are 

not in proportion nor timed to address the harm done to existing roads and other services. BLM decisions 

only exacerbate the problem. EIS fails to analyze transportation needs in terms of future demand, 

efficiency and safety. EIS minimizes the costs of mitigation measures and the impacts on other 

discretionary uses, such as OHV recreation. 

Response: Assuming the bridge in question is across the New Fork River, this is a private land issue. The 

county does not have a road directly affected by the Jonah Field. The highway is WYDOT and all the 

interior roads are maintained by the operators.

Comment: PAGE: 4-145, SECTION: 4.12.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD County and state 

roads and other R.S. 2477 rights are not affected by this RMP but BLM decisions can result in 

Pinedale RMP A27-415 
Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management Final EIS 

degradation of county road systems. EXPLANATION: EIS omits county road system, although as 

explained above, the RMP imposes significant costs on the county and the impacts include destruction of 

county road system and increased traffic during the artificially short construction season.

Response: BLM’s transportation planning process does consider how county and/or other transportation 

systems affect public access and use; however BLM, as correctly stated, has no administrative jurisdiction 

regarding county roads.

Comment: PAGE: A17-2 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add maps that are omitted. 

EXPLANATION: Transportation map not on web site nor shown anywhere. Maps should display county 

road system anyway.

Response: Map A17-2 depicts the general transportation routes within the planning area. Other than 

federal and state highways, specifically noting all county and BLM roads within the planning area is not 

possible at the scale required for this document.

Comment: PAGE: G-3 CHANGE: CHERRY-STEMMING – The proliferation of roads and multiple 

branching of roads within an area. This [has significant impact on](STRIKEOUT) may adversely affect 

wildlife habitat through fragmentation and loss of habitat. EXPLANATION: Level of impacts, if any, to 

wildlife depend on facts and circumstances of particular road and habitat. Definition should be revised to 

account for relative impacts.

Response: The definition has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-6 CHANGE: DESIGNATED ROADS AND TRAILS – Those roads and trails 

owned and administered by BLM that are specifically identified by the BLM as the only allowable routes 

for motor vehicle travel in the specific area involved. All designations must be based on the protection of 

the resources of the public lands, the promotion of the safety of all the users of the public lands, and the 

minimization of conflicts among various uses of the public lands; and in accordance with the specific 

criteria. EXPLANATION: BLM may not determine allowable uses on roads and trails it does not own or 

administer, and the definition needs to be modified to reflect this limitation. There are also specific 

designation criteria and procedures with which BLM must comply, including minimizing conflicts with 

public land users. 43 C.F.R. Subpart 8342.

Response: The definition of designated roads and trails provided does not indicate BLM would dictate 

allowable uses. Specific routes and/or any special management prescriptions would be determined 

through the area-specific transportation planning activity plans, utilizing public input.

Comment: PAGE: G-20 CHANGE: ROAD - A public way for purposes of vehicular travel. [A vehicle 

route that has either been improved or maintained by mechanical means to ensure relatively regular and 

continuous use, or has been established where vehicle travel has created two parallel tracks lacking 

vegetation.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Proposed definition is based on wilderness roadless review 

program under FLPMA which has expired, 43 U.S.C. § 1782 (House Committee Report 94-1163, p. 17 

(May 15, 1976). The definition needs to reflect broad use of the term under both federal and state law. 

SUWA v. BLM, 425 F.3d 735, 779-83 (10 Cir. th . 2005).

Response: The definition of road is appropriate as given in the draft EIS.

Off-highway Vehicles 

Comment: In addition, we would like to see the plan provide specific guidance on the expanding 

development of OHV trail within VRM Class II areas.

A27-416 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management 

Response: BLM would address specific OHV projects on a case-by-case basis, utilizing the appropriate 

project planning and development guidance. Project issues related to resource concerns such as VRM 

would be considered during the NEPA process.

Comment: PAGE: 2-15 SECTION: 2.3.17 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD • Identify demand for 

OHV use and the best locations to meet that demand while avoiding undue and unnecessary degradation. 

[use escalating to a significant issue](strikeout) EXPLANATION: Both the MSA and Chapter 3 identify 

increased demand for OHV use. The RMP proposes to reduce OHV use to about 10% of current levels, a 

decision that is not supported by the record. The CLG believes that BLM needs to match demand to 

specific areas, in order to address current levels for OHV use and anticipated demand. The language adds 

emotion where none is appropriate. 

Response: The text referred to is an example of where an activity plan working group might be useful 

and is appropriate as given in the draft EIS.

Comment: The next subject would be off road recreational areas. We have one place in the desert out 

there, I can delineate it if you want. I don’t -- I don’t have a physical description, but it’s between the 

Alkali Draw and the Burma Road and it’s on Granite Wash. There’s been historical use there. There’s 

clay knobs that are devoid of vegetation basically and there’s rolling clay knobs and that’s been a major 

place for motorcyclists and recreationlists of that sort since the ’70s. And this would all be taken away in 

the RMP Alternative 4 and all the other alternatives. The Alternative 4 has an area for OHV use in the 

Pinedale area south of the -- Pinedale, southwest just a little bit, and it’s been shrunk to the size – it’s 

really going to be basically not hardly usable. And it’s going to encourage use around the OHV area. I 

think it’s time to understand that there are people that are going to use this land for that purpose and make 

it big enough that it can be contained; otherwise, you’re just making to make the -- make the population 

that uses that criminals for using federal property that it shouldn’t -- that they shouldn’t be. So I think that 

area should be increased to the size that is in, I think, Alternative 1.

Response: The final EIS considers an OHV “open” area located in the vicinity of Granite Wash. Areas 

open to unregulated OHV use have been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 2-136, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [g. OHV designations for restrictions to 

existing roads and trails would remain in effect until travel management planning is completed and 

designated roads and trails are identified.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: BLM cannot close public lands to 

OHV use without more basis. OHV use is defined as crosscountry travel and limiting it to existing trails is 

in fact a closure. RMP fails to show that there is a need to close this much of planning area and fails to 

show that the remaining open areas are sufficient to meet recreation demand. The local governments own 

experience suggests that it falls far short of meeting demand.

Response: BLM Land Use Planning Guidance for Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (H1601-1) requires BLM to provide short-term management guidance for OHV use in areas when BLM is 

unable to complete transportation planning for any given area during the RMP process. Therefore, BLM 

has adhered to this directive by allowing for continued OHV uses and activities within the planning area. 

CFR 8340.0(a) 5 defines OHV (h) as follows: “Closed Area means an area where off-road vehicle use is 

prohibited. Use of off-road vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons; however, such use 

shall be made only with the approval of the authorized officer”. 

Comment: PAGE:2-136 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [a. OHV designations 

would be established for all lands within the PFO. Periodic adjustments and use constraints could be 

necessary to ensure that sensitive resources are appropriately protected from excessive disturbance; road, 

route, and trail proliferation; and human encroachment. b. Motorized vehicle use, except for over-thePinedale RMP A27-417 
Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management Final EIS 

snow equipment, would be limited to existing roads and trails unless otherwise specified.](strikeout) 

EXPLANATION: RMP closes all areas to cross country travel without documentation of need.

Response: Under the Preferred Alternative, the “Desert Open Area” OHV designation would change to 

“Limited Area” where OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails. BLM must provide a 

reasonable range of alternatives, and given the resource values associated within this area, this action is 

deemed reasonable and appropriate for consideration. A basis for considering this action is found in CFR 

8342.1, Designation Criteria, which directs BLM as follows: “(a) Areas and trails shall be located to 

minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, or other resources of the public lands. and (b) Areas 

and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats. 

Special attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened species and their habitat.”

Comment: PAGE:2-136 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:DEIS states: f. The Red Dugway 

road would be limited to all-terrain vehicles (ATV), horse, and foot traffic (Map 2-21). EXPLANATION: 

This road should remain available for recreation use. 

Response: In this alternative the Red Dugway road would be available for recreation use.

Comment: PAGE:2-142 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:Delete: [a. Vehicles and equipment 

used for fire suppression would be subject to the OHV restrictions applicable in the area of the 

fire.](strikeout) EXPLANATION:Contrary to fire plan. 

Response: It is reasonable to extend OHV restrictions to all uses, rather than singling out certain types of 

vehicle use. New roads are pioneered in many ways. Often only a few vehicle passes are required to make 

what looks like a road to other users.

Comment: PAGE: 3.90, SECTION: 3.12.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add data regarding OHV use 

trends in the future. EXPLANATION: The discussion of OHV use trends conforms to CLG data that 

there is a sharp increase. In comments elsewhere, CLG notes that the RMP decisions to adopt limited and 

closed OHV use areas contradicts trends of increased use. The RMP needs to explain the basis for 

determining the remaining areas are sufficient to meet OHV use trends.

Response: BLM has no data to indicate that future trends for OHV use within the planning area would 

not be accommodated.

Comment: PAGE: 4-145, SECTION: 4.12.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Allow OHV use in 

emergency. Lands would be open to motor vehicle access for emergency purposes such as search and 

rescue and fire fighting, regardless of the OHV designation. EXPLANATION: Chapter 2 does not 

provide for OHV access for emergency or fire fighting.

Response: Emergency purposes fall under “necessary tasks” and would be allowed in all areas. Fire 

fighting needs are assessed case-by-case and would be subject to the RMP and decisions of the resource 

advisor or Authorized Officer. Wildland fire, particularly where no structures are threatened, is not 

always an emergency situation.

Comment: PAGE: 4-148, SECTION: 4.12.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD OHV restrictions will 

cause significant damage to private lands when frustrated OHV users turn to private lands. 

EXPLANATION: EIS discussion flawed: Fails to disclose change from most public lands being open to 

OHV use to less than 3,110 acres open, more than 124,980 acres limited OHV, and the rest closed.

A27-418 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management 

Response: BLM has no data indicating OHV use on private lands would be impacted by OHV 

designations on federal lands. OHV use in the Proposed Plan could continue to occur on 893,480 acres of 

the planning area.

Comment: PAGE: 4-208 SECTION: 4.17.7 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [The impacts from 

OHV Open areas would be the same as under Alternative 2.] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Untrue 

since alternative 2 has 10460 acres for OHV and alternative 4 has only 3110 acres.

Response: The text has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: The Bureau of Land Management’s consideration to limit or shut down the area to off road 

vehicles would be a huge loss to the community. The area is amazing for friends and families to have 

meaningful experiences together and see some amazing sights and beautiful lands. Public lands. That is 

how the public uses it. If it were closed, those opportunities would be gone. Far less people hike or bike 

there, and my guess as a resident is that the usage would decrease substantially. At the end of the day, it 

still is a public area, right? My suggestion is to allow people to use the area how they choose. Currently, I 

think it’s safe to say that the majority of people choose to motor their way around the area without 

worrying about violating laws that prohibit their use. 

I know a lot of kids my age, and younger, that spend their time living and breathing motorcycles and 

ATVs. They spend their time either riding, or working for the money to allow them to ride. What would 

they be doing if they weren’t? I don’t want to think about it. I do believe firmly that ORV areas keep kids, 

including my friends, off drugs and out of trouble. I have no idea what I activities I would be doing with 

the time I spend riding. I know it wouldn’t be a positive thing. What would be the consequences of 

closing or restricting the ORV use? Concentrated and overly crowded areas elsewhere. The hills 

bordering Marbleton would be affected greatly, as they would see much more use, causing detrimental 

and serious effects to the land. The damage to the vegetation would be terrible, much more so than the 

damage of the larger South Open Desert could ever be. Families are the greatest benefactors of the current 

ORV area. 

Response: BLM recognizes the legitimate need for OHV activities utilizing motorized off-road, crosscountry travel. However, public sentiment and BLM transportation and planning guidance does not 

support unlimited off-road, cross-country motorized travel. Generally, unlimited motorized cross-country 

travel may be warranted in areas where it does not impact other valuable resources, where conflicts with 

other recreational activities are insignificant, and where a substantial demand for this type of motorized 

recreational activity has been demonstrated. The comment implies that large areas would be closed to 

OHV use, which is not the case. Under the Preferred Alternative, only 23,730 acres, mostly in wilderness 

study areas, would be closed to OHV use. Approximately 771,000 acres would be available for OHV use 

on existing roads and trails. 

Comment: PAGE: G-15 CHANGE: OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATIONS - 

Designations limited to roads and trails owned and administered by BLM and apply to all off-road 

vehicles regardless of the purposes for which they are being used. EXPLANATION: Per comment on 

Designated Roads and Trails, BLM may not determine allowable uses on roads and trails it does not own 

or administer, and the definition needs to be modified to reflect this limitation.

Response: The definition provided makes no reference to administrative authority for non-federal lands.

Pinedale RMP A27-419 
Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management Final EIS 

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) 

Comment: PAGE:2-155, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: g. Roads and ROW would follow existing 

alignments unless design and implementation would preclude adverse impacts on trout and elk calving 

habitat. EXPLANATION: This action should be applied throughout the plan. 

Response: Most of the planning area does not contain trout and elk calving habitats. It is not reasonable 

to limit new roads and ROWs to existing disturbance throughout the planning area.

Comment: PAGE: 4.35, SECTION: 4.5.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Rerouting rights-of-way 

will cause additional surface disturbance. EXPLANATION: Re-routing access roads may see as much as 

13 miles of new road. The increased surface disturbance reduces mitigation benefits being imposed. 

Roads tend to be of lower standard, thus adding to dust and erosion as well.

Response: It is impossible to calculate how much additional surface disturbance might be caused in the 

future by rerouting of ROWs that might someday be proposed. However, a general statement of potential 

additional surface disturbance has been added to the final EIS.

Laws, Policy, Guidelines 

Comment: Follow Wyoming Game and Fish Departments guidelines in construction of all new roads 

(Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2004).

Response: BLM currently uses accepted road construction and maintenance standards.

Comment: PAGE: 2-136, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: c. Reasonable access would be provided across 

public lands to landlocked private and state lands, consistent with federal law and BLM Manual 2801.49. 

EXPLANATION: BLM has statutory obligation to provide access. 16 U.S.C. §1332(b). 

Response: Federal regulations at 16 USC § 1332 ( b) reads as follows: (b) “wild free-roaming horses and 

burros” means all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands of the United States.

Comment: PAGE: 2-136, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: d. Access across private lands to isolated 

public land parcels would be acquired from willing land owners only to the extent necessary and then 

only the minimum amount of land. EXPLANATION: FLPMA limits access acquisition for a right-ofway. 43 U.S.C. §1715(a). 

Response: The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 as Amended Title II Sec 205. [43 USC 

1715] “(a) Not with standing any other provisions of law, the Secretary, with respect to the public lands 

and the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to the acquisition of access over non-Federal lands to units 

of National Forest System, are authorized to acquire pursuant to this Act by purchase, exchange, 

donation, or eminent domain, lands or interests therein: Provided, That with respect to public lands, the 

Secretary may exercise the power of eminent domain only if necessary to secure access to public lands, 

and then only if the lands so acquired are confined to as narrow a corridor as is necessary to serve such 

purpose. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as expanding or limiting the authority of the 

Secretary of Agriculture to acquire land by eminent domain within the boundaries of units of the National 

Forest System.”

Comments with Multiple Issues 

Comment: Page 2-20 (bottom), “Large Block NSO Areas would be managed for protection of wildlife 

habitats through offering oil and gas leases with NSO stipulations.” Comment - Though through such 

methods as horizontal drilling it may be possible for E&P companies to develop resources under Large 

A27-420 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management 

Block NSO Areas, to accomplish geophysical exploration over such leases it is necessary for those 

operations to be conducted on the surface above. Therefore, NSO stipulations should allow geophysical 

operations in these multi-use Large Block NSO Areas. Geophysical operations have a near-zero impact 

on the environment (including wildlife – it has not been shown that geophysical has had a negative impact 

on any wildlife) and should be allowed to be conducted in any multi-use area under BLM jurisdiction. 

Page 2-122 (bottom), “Provide opportunities for geophysical and geologic data acquisition while 

mitigating impacts on important resource values. Actions: 

a. Geophysical data gathering methods that involve only casual use of the surface (as defined in 43 CFR 

§3150) would be permitted throughout the planning area. 

b. Vehicle-based geophysical activities would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 

c. The use of surface and/or above-ground (Poulter shot) explosive charges for geophysical exploration 

would be assessed case by case. 

d. Geophysical projects, including projects proposed in areas with an NSO restriction, would be analyzed 

and mitigation developed on a case-by-case basis.” Comment - Since it is stated in (a.) that “geophysical 

data gathering methods that involve only casual use” shall be permitted, (b.), (c.) and (d.) are redundant 

and should be deleted. As currently stated, the methods to be used are adequately defined within the 

definition of “casual use”. Then, however, the term “case-by-case basis” is used to eliminate the useful 

guidelines of the definition of “casual use”, offering decision making latitude that need not be included in 

this process. There is no reason to complicate that which is already uncomplicated. 

Incidentally, since the definition of “casual use” allows for “activities that involve practices which do not 

ordinarily lead to any appreciable disturbance or damage to lands, resources, and improvements”, and 

since ATV’s, due to their very design, do not cause any appreciable disturbance or damage, then in this 

sense ATV’s should not ever be considered as vehicles subject to any such limitations. Therefore, the 

following clause should be included after the existing sentence in (a.), stating, “ATV operation is to be 

considered a casual use activity in this RMP.” 

Page 2-155 (bottom), “e. Geophysical operations on BLM-administered surface in the Wind River Front 

Management Area would be restricted to designated roads and trails or to non-vehicle-based methods.” 

Comment - Since ATV’s, due to their very design, do not cause any appreciable disturbance or damage, 

then in this sense ATV’s should not ever be considered as vehicles and be subject to any such limitations. 

Therefore, the following clause should be included after the existing sentence in (e.), stating, “ATV 

operation is considered a casual use activity and therefore considered a non-vehicle based method in this 

RMP.” 

Page 4-52 (bottom), “Contributing segments of the Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff Trail would be 

encumbered by a CSU stipulation that prohibits surface disturbance, including geophysical vehicle or 

shot-hole operations within one-quarter mile or the visual horizon, whichever is closer (geophysical cable 

laying by hand-crews on foot is allowed).” Comment - As there are a number of operations besides cable 

laying on a geophysical operation that do not involve “geophysical vehicle or shot-hole operations”, the 

phrase inside the parenthesis should be worded as follows: “all non-vehicle-based methods are allowed.” 

Page 4-53, “Approximately 315,690 acres would be closed to OHV use from November 15 to April 30. 

This corresponds with big game crucial winter range closures and precludes surface disturbing activity, 

including oil and gas development, during this time. This would seasonally limit the extent of exploration 

(including geophysical operations) and development that could occur in these areas. Within the big game 

Pinedale RMP A27-421 
Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management Final EIS 

winter range OHV seasonal closure, the Bench Corral area and elk feedgrounds would not only be closed 

to surface disturbing activities, but would also be closed to unauthorized human presence from November 

15 through April 30 annually. This would potentially impact production operations, such as pumper 

access, workover rig, and condensate/produced water hauling, as well as geophysical exploration in the 

closure area during the closure period.” Comment - Geophysical operations have very low to zero impact 

on the environment. Hundreds of thousands of miles of geophysical data have been acquired in the 

Rockies with virtually no resulting environmental disturbance or damage. Geophysical operations should 

not be included in any winter range exclusion period. In all the years that geophysical operations were 

normally conducted through winter range periods, and in all the years of geophysical operations during 

other times, it has never been demonstrated that those operations have shown to have a negative effect on 

any wildlife. 

Page 4-54, “Vehicle-based geophysical operations could be prohibited in areas with known 

paleontological resources and in areas with a high potential to contain paleontological resources. 

Geophysical data source points would avoid paleontological sites. The data points would be either moved 

away from the site or skipped entirely.” Comment - This statement is too open-ended with no appropriate 

guidance of avoidance parameters. The following should be substituted: “Vehicle-based geophysical 

operations are not to occupy the same surface area as known paleontological resources in situ. Also, 

vehicle-based geophysical operations will avoid occupying the same surface area that have high potential 

for significant paleontological resources (defined as specific areas consisting of rock units with a high 

potential for significant paleontological resources known to have yielded vertebrate fossils within the 

project area or region). A geophysical source point will avoid a paleontological site by either being 

moved (or skipped) from that same surface area occupied by that paleontological site.” 

Page 4-73, “Geophysical operations would be restricted during the 5-month window where greater sagegrouse habitats occur.” Comment - This statement requires deletion. There has been no reason shown for 

such a restriction. It has never been demonstrated that geophysical operations harm any wildlife, 

including sage-grouse. The low impact, transient nature of geophysical operations have a near zero impact 

on the environment. In fact, because geophysical operations have such little impact on the environment, 

and yet greatly increase oil and gas drilling success which results in significant reduction of total drilling 

and associated environmental impact, geophysical operations should be encouraged instead of restricted. 

Page 4-210, “Geophysical actions during wildlife-sensitive time periods would likely disturb wildlife, 

causing reduced fitness, temporary habitat abandonment, or nest abandonment.” Comment - This 

comment is outrageous and requires deletion. As stated previously, there is no evidence that geophysical 

operations have harmed any wildlife. The low impact, transient nature of seismic operations require that 

seismic operations not be lumped together with other activities that are permanent and impactful in 

nature. The following clause should be substituted: “Geophysical operations by their very nature are 

transient and near zero impact to the environment, and therefore are not to be excluded during wildlifesensitive time periods. In fact, the data derived from geophysical operations will significantly reduce 

environmental impact because higher drilling success rates (less dry holes) from those data result in much 

less overall drilling and associated activities.” 

Response: Geophysical operations are not considered “surface occupancy” and would be allowed with 

the restrictions listed on pages 2-122 and 2-123. Not all geophysical data gathering methods involve only 

casual use. It is not correct to assume that all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use causes no disturbance or damage. 

BLM intended to specifically allow geophysical vehicle or shot-hole operations. Other proposed activities 

would be evaluated case-by-case. You are correct that geophysical operations have less impact than 

drilling. The restrictions on geophysical activities are much more lenient than the restrictions on drilling 

and other activities. The text concerning vehicle-based geophysical operations is appropriate as presented 

in the draft EIS. It is reasonable to restrict disruptive activities like thumper trucks and other geophysical 

A27-422 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management 

methods during nesting and other sensitive periods for sage-grouse, a sensitive species. It is reasonable to 

present the potential impact of nest abandonment or temporary habitat abandonment due to the presence 

of thumper trucks or other geophysical equipment.

Comment: There are a many options available besides laying cable that do not involve “geophysical 

vehicle or shot-hole operations.” The phrase inside the parenthesis should be worded as follows: “all nonvehicle-based methods are allowed.” BLM must recognize that these types of non-intrusive methods will 

not impact the actual trail segment, not to mention the 1⁄4 mile buffer. We recommend BLM revise this 

section to specify that non-vehicle-based methods are allowed without restriction. 

Page 4-53 “Approximately 315,690 acres would be closed to OHV use from November 15 to April 30. 

This corresponds with big game crucial winter range closures and precludes surface disturbing activity, 

including oil and gas development, during this time. This would seasonally limit the extent of exploration 

(including geophysical operations) and development that could occur in these areas. Within the big game 

winter range OHV seasonal closure, the Bench Corral area and elk feed grounds would not only be closed 

to surface disturbing activities, but would also be closed to unauthorized human presence from November 

15 through April 30 annually. This would potentially impact production operations, such as pumper 

access, workover rig, and condensate/produced water hauling, as well as geophysical exploration in the 

closure area during the closure period.” Comment - As state previously in these comments, geophysical 

operations have virtually zero impact on the environment. Hundreds of thousands of miles of geophysical 

data have been acquired in the Rockies with no resultant environmental disturbance or damage. It is 

unwarranted to include geophysical operations in any winter range exclusion period. In all the years that 

geophysical operations were normally conducted through winter range periods, and in all the years of 

geophysical operations during other times, it has never been demonstrated that those operations have had 

a negative effect on any wildlife species. 

Page 4-54 “Vehicle-based geophysical operations could be prohibited in areas with known 

paleontological resources and in areas with a high potential to contain paleontological resources. 

Geophysical data source points would avoid paleontological sites. The data points would be either moved 

away from the site or skipped entirely.” Comment - This statement is open-ended with no appropriate 

guidance of avoidance parameters. The following sentence should be substituted: Vehicle-based 

geophysical operations should avoid occupying areas with known paleontological resources (defined as 

specific areas consisting of rock units with a high potential for significant paleontological resources 

known to have yielded vertebrate fossils within the project area or region). A geophysical source point 

will avoid a paleontological site by either being moved (or skipped) from that same surface area occupied 

by that paleontological site.” 

Response: BLM intended to specifically allow the activity in the parentheses. Other proposed activities 

would be evaluated case-by-case.

Seasonal Restrictions 

Comment: PAGE:2-136 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [g. Additional restrictions 

for seasonal use of over-the-snow recreational motorized equipment would apply as follows: 

• Big game crucial winter range (except designated routes on Map 2-35) (November 15 to April 

30) 

• Elk feedgrounds (November 1 to April 30) 

• Bench Corral area (November 1 to April 30) 

• CCC Ponds SRMA (closed year round).](strikeout) 

Pinedale RMP A27-423 
Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management Final EIS 

EXPLANATION:The local governments do not believe that increased elk numbers support closures that 

would prohibit snow mobiles. 

Response: BLM and WGFD have agreed that these restrictions would reduce stress upon important 

wildlife using crucial winter ranges. Most crucial winter ranges affected are those for mule deer and 

pronghorn. Few native elk crucial winter ranges remain in the planning area. 

Comment: PAGE:2-136 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [I. Additional restrictions 

for all motorized equipment would apply as follows (Map 2-35): 

• Approximately 2,500 acres between Silver Creek and Cottonwood Creek would be closed from 

November 15 through January 31 (Map 2-35). 

• Roads could be closed seasonally to avoid damage or to protect resource values.](strikeout) 

INSERT The local governments will sponsor an advisory group to identify roads needed for access and 

the times for which access is needed and provide the information to BLM along with the roads and trails 

which are part of the county road system. EXPLANATION: Hunters need access to Silver and 

Cottonwood Creeks. This restriction is unreasonable and not based on any facts. The local governments 

do not disagree that some roads should be closed at specific times of the year. The RMP however does not 

clarify the basis for the closure thus allowing entirely arbitrary decisions to be made. Immediate closure 

cannot be justified based on the planning record. The complete lack of coordination with county 

government which has statutory jurisdiction over roads and trails and is responsible for transportation 

system is just one example of why the decision needs to be postponed until there is the much needed 

coordination.

Response: The counties and conservation districts, as cooperators on the RMP process, would be invited 

to participate in the transportation planning to be conducted following finalization of the RMP ROD. The 

road closure for the Silver Creek Ridge was in response to a request from WGFD. WGFD worked and 

continues to work with adjoining ranchers to reduce depredation of stored agricultural crops through the 

use of controlled access across public lands and access to private lands under a hunter management area 

concept. The road closure was published in the Federal Register and several articles appeared in the local 

newspapers. No comments were received. Each year WGFD publishes new maps that contain rancher 

contact information and rules for all hunters governing access to private lands with the intent to reduce 

the stored agricultural crop depredation. All vehicular traffic into Cottonwood Creek is controlled by 

private land owners. It is necessary to provide for emergency closures in situations of damage or risk to 

public safety.

Comment: PAGE:2-137 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [j. OHV closures and 

seasonal restrictions would be effective immediately upon signing of the ROD for the RMP.](strikeout) 

EXPLANATION:Immediate closure cannot be justified based on the planning record. The complete lack 

of coordination with county government which has statutory jurisdiction over roads and trails and is 

responsible for transportation system is just one example of why the decision needs to be postponed until 

there is the much needed coordination.

Response: The action referenced does not impose any restrictions or limitations upon the transportation 

systems administered by Sublette or Lincoln counties.

Hazardous Materials 

Comment: To minimize the risk of hazmat spills that may contaminate ground waters used by residents 

living near Highway 191 north of Sand Draw, require trucks carrying hazardous materials to and from the 

A27-424 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management 

Pinedale Anticline field to use the Piney Cutoff (County Road 351) and south entrance to the Paradise 

Road. The north end of the Paradise Road, near the junction with Highway 191, presents greater risk of 

motor vehicle accidents and also presents greater risk of surface water contamination.

Response: This is outside BLM authority.

Comment: To address surface water issues outlined in these comments, I am asking the BLM to adopt 

the following direction in the new RMP: • To prevent accidental spill-related contamination of the Class 1 

surface waters in the Green River above the New Fork confluence, transport of hazardous materials 

(including any vehicle carrying more than 100 gallons of diesel fuel or gasoline) shall be prohibited along 

the East Green River Road, Sublette County Road 110, between U.S. Highway 191 and County Road 351 

(Piney Cutoff); exceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis for ranches and home owners along this 

road segment.

Response: This is outside BLM authority.

Comment: To minimize the risk of hazmat spills in the Green River and New Fork River, require trucks 

transporting hazardous materials to and from the Jonah field to use the Luman Road, and prohibit travel 

by such vehicles on the Piney Cutoff (County Road 351) from 1/4 mile east of the New Fork River Bridge 

to U.S. Highway 189. 

To protect the Hoback River and ground water resources west of the Rim, discourage transport of 

hazardous materials - to or from the Jonah field, PAPA field, and other oil or gas sites in the PRA - on 

U.S. 189/191 through Hoback Canyon.

Response: This is outside BLM authority.

Comment: “Contributing segments of the Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff Trail would be encumbered 

by a CSU stipulation that prohibits surface disturbance, including geophysical vehicle or shot-hole 

operations within one-quarter mile or the visual horizon, whichever is closer (geophysical cable laying by 

hand-crews on foot is allowed).” Comment: There are operations besides cable laying on geophysical 

operations that do not involve “geophysical vehicle or shot-hole operations.” The phrase inside the 

parenthesis should be worded as follows: “all non-vehicle-based methods are allowed.” Further, 

geophysical operation is a very short duration and temporal activity. Any use of the 1⁄4 mile visual horizon 

would only be temporary and would not involve a long term presence that would compromise the trail. 

Response: We appreciate and recognize your point. We also find that any National Historic Trails 

conflicts proposed by geophysical operations are best evaluated and mitigated on a case-by-case basis, so 

we choose to retain the original language. Over the past 25 years, we have not found such conflicts to 

encumber either the geophysical operations or historic trails management strategies. 

Comment: And I think that any road that serves more than three wells should be magged, automatically, 

or dust control of some sort, whether it’s the beano (phonetic) or whatever we get but we’ve got to do 

some dust suppression. I don't really think that just using water is the answer because then we’re going to 

use up the water that we need here to subsist with and keep our aquifers full.

Response: Mitigation of impacts of gas field developments should be determined at the implementation 

or permitting stage, not dictated in the RMP. Methods to control dust are included in the BMPs in 

Appendix 5. It is not appropriate to specify a particular BMP for use throughout the planning area.

Pinedale RMP A27-425 
Appendix 27—Transportation, Access, and Travel Management Final EIS 

Comment: I think any road that serves more than 50 wells should be paved. Whether it’s in these fields 

or any new fields that are coming up, I think that even the oil fields should have that consideration. I don’t 

know if you can force it on old leases, but I think there should be a cooperation with all the different 

agencies and understand that we can do so much with taking to these big developments like this.

Response: Mitigation of impacts of gas field developments should be determined at the implementation 

or permitting stage, not dictated in the RMP. Methods to control dust are included in the BMPs in 

Appendix 5. It is not appropriate to specify a particular BMP for use throughout the planning area.

A27-426 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Vegetation 

Vegetation 

General Comment Responses: No GCRs are associated with this category.

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes 

Comment: PAGE:2-137 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE a. BLM will commit to 

funding and will [would](strikeout) collaborate with stakeholders (federal, state, and local agencies; 

operators; landowners) to identify funding mechanisms and methods to complete ecological site and 

vegetation inventory. EXPLANATION: BLM should be funding the effort on public lands. The work 

done on private lands can be funded through conservation districts and NRCS. Private land owners and 

local governments like the county do not have such funding. 

Response: Local cooperators are interested in assisting in funding this effort. PFO sees no reason to 

refuse this offer of cooperation.

Comment: PAGE: 3.93, SECTION: 3.13.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise to disclose the 

percent or riparian and “wetland” areas discussed in the RMP are public land and those that are private 

land. EXPLANATION: The RMP fails to disclose that most (about 80%) of the riparian and wetland 

areas are located on fee land outside of the RMP.

Response: The acreages and percentages in the text in Section 3.13.1 have been updated to agree with 

Table 3-27, which provided vegetation acreage values for BLM lands within the planning area.

Comment: PAGE: 3.135, SECTION: 3.18.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Need more here]

EXPLANATION: Most of the plants listed are not located in the area.

Response: No plants are listed in the section mentioned. However, the presence of a number of sensitive 

plants in the Ross Butte area has been verified.

Comment: PAGE: 4-149, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Wildlife numbers and upward trends 

adversely affect plant communities.

Response: BLM finds that this assumption is not necessary.

Comment: PAGE: 4-149, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Current [Some original] (STRIKEOUT) plant 

communities likely would not be reestablished to pre-disturbance structure and density for more than 20 

years. EXPLANATION: Original is the wrong term. There is no such term “original plant communities” 

Response: This assumption has been rephrased in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE:2-137 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Objective 1 Establish and 

maintain an accurate ecological site and vegetation inventory for the planning area. EXPLANATION: An 

ecological site inventory is more meaningful because it will provide additional information regarding soil 

type, site potential rather than just a list of the plants currently present. 

Response: This change has been included in the final EIS.

Special Status Species 

Comment: DEIS A18-1: Regarding Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) conservation measures, the 

DEIS states “plans that incorporate these measures, and projects that implement them, are generally not 

Pinedale RMP A27-427 
Appendix 27—Vegetation Final EIS 

expected to have adverse effects on the orchid...”. However, according to the programmatic BA and 

programmatic BO for the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid, plans that incorporate the measures are still expected 

to have adverse effects to individual orchids as a result of livestock grazing activities. Please see the 

programmatic BAs and BOs and adjust the text of Appendix 18 of the DEIS, if necessary.

Response: The Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion were received too late to be incorporated 

into the draft EIS. The information in them has been included in the final EIS.

Comment: The DEIS does not contain the Bureau’s most up-to-date programmatic conservation 

measures for the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid. Please see the latest drafts of the programmatic BAs and BOs 

for the most up-to-date conservation measures.

Response: The Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion were received too late to be incorporated 

into the draft EIS. The information in them has been included in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE:2-137 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE c. Known and discovered 

locations of Special Status Plant Species would be protected and closed or avoided to— 

EXPLANATION:The avoidance option should be available where appropriate.

Response: Avoidance would mean that special status plants could be destroyed, which is not compatible 

with BLM policy. Avoidance is appropriate only with ROWs where the special status plant population 

would experience no surface disturbance but where the project could proceed through other methods. 

Comment: PAGE: 1-152, SECTION: 4.13.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE OHV use would 

result in localized impacts on vegetation, such as reduction of vegetation cover and density and 

community composition changes. [The generation of dust from vehicular travel on roads next to Special 

Status Species could affect plant photosynthesis and population survival because of the small number of 

individual plants in some areas.] (STRIKEOUT_ Reclamation would replace abandoned roads with 

herbaceous and shrubby vegetation and the impacts stated above would no longer occur. 

EXPLANATION: The dust would have to bury the plant. Not true.

Response: Reduction of photosynthesis can occur when fugitive dust lands on and coats the leaves of a 

plant adjacent to a road. This may affect a stressed plant and lead to further deterioration. With plants that 

are already uncommon, this may cause a loss of productivity and be detrimental to the plant or the 

population.

Reclamation, Mitigation, Revegetation, Treatments 

Comment: We find the current federal and state management of our wildlife resources to be reactive, 

with no clear plans to maintain, improve or restore habitats so vital to the future of our wildlife 

populations. Accordingly, we insist that the following corrective actions be considered and implemented: 

9. A site specific, detailed reclamation plan should be prepared for each well pad, pipeline, and road prior 

to authorization and include: 

• Top soil storage techniques 

• Native vegetation disturbed 

• Diversity and composition. 

• Importance to animal use patterns 

• Expected results from reseeding 

• Need to collect native seed 

• Need for irrigation and fertilization 

• Need for fencing 

A27-428 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Vegetation 

• Methods to be employed to insure success 

• Potential for mats 

• Drilling, broadcasting or natural reinvasion of plants 

• Plans to revisit site with heavy equipment and reclamation 

• Definition of success 

• Native plant diversity 

• Ground cover 

• Predicted animal use 

• Plans for reseeding if reclamation fails 

• Costs, bonding and penalties for failure

Response: The methods suggested here represent current technology on reclamation. Site-specific 

reclamation requirements would be determined at the project or implementation level rather than in the 

RMP. These methods have been included in the list of BMPs to be used in oil and gas and other 

developments. 

Comment: Page 3 -- 31 on vegetation treatments the question remains there should be a vegetation 

reclamation plan that is implemented for a typical well site. How it will be implemented, what species of 

vegetation, the amount of vegetation density that will be re-established, etc. There must be a detailed plan 

that allows a site developer to follow and the BLM to enforce, in accordance with approved outlined rules 

regulations on vegetative reclamation and soil reclamation, to restore the local environmental conditions 

in and around the site after development. 

Recent site visits by this office have indicated that there is a lack of proper erosion control and vegetative 

reclamation or a cohesive plan that is consistent from site to site. This office, from observation, believes 

that there is a lack of enforcement or planning or both that can be consistently followed through to 

minimize impacts. Some sites appear they have not been properly reclaimed or done at all. 

The above-mentioned plan should also address specific environmental area such as riparian and river 

bottom areas which are unique local ecological areas that are different than open range land areas that 

must have a separate and distinct plan to themselves to address similar impacts of erosion control soil 

management and vegetative reestablishment.

Response: Site-specific reclamation requirements would be determined at the project or implementation 

level rather than in the RMP. As stated on page 4-3 of the draft EIS, BLM assumes that sufficient funding 

and personnel would be available to implement the RMP.

Comment: Page 3 -- 87 limitations on specific activities (last paragraph) indicates many soils within the 

planning area have limiting features that make reclamation and revegetation difficult. Have those areas 

been identified and have they been worked into a comprehensive plan as mentioned above. The EIS 

should develop and expand upon special reclamation and revegetation plans for those difficult areas and 

what site specific actions reclamations and revegetation items are necessary to successfully reclaim and 

revegetate those areas. The EIS should identify and delineate, so disturbance and encroachment are 

eliminated. What kind of Delineation fencing flagging or other, etc. Delineation of these areas would also 

help in reducing and eliminating contact with OHV usage, trucks, drilling operations etc where their 

disturbance on critical soil areas can cause severe degradation loss of vegetation and alteration of the 

visual landscape therefore these areas should be properly delineated also who enforces that these areas 

remain untrammeled.

Pinedale RMP A27-429 
Appendix 27—Vegetation Final EIS 

Response: Specific soil site data is not available to fully map soils in the planning area to identify where 

limitations exist that would make successful reclamation difficult. In addition, site-specific reclamation 

requirements would be determined at the project or implementation level rather than in the RMP. 

Comment: We advocate for the use of only native vegetation for reclamation. Non-native species create 

long-term problems and many can become invasive. BLM must require that land be reclaimed as nearly 

as possible to original (pre-project) condition. We incorporate herein by reference our scoping comments 

submitted April 7, 2003, to be included in their entirety (including all attachments and exhibits) as part of 

these comments to the DEIS. In the interests of conserving resources and file space, we have not attached 

a copy of this document since they are already part of the record.

Response: BLM uses native species whenever possible for reclamation as outlined in Section 1745 of the 

Manual. Reclamation is planned and designed to produce a desired plant community in accordance with 

the resource goals of that particular area. 

Comment: Item: Page A3-5, Appendix 3, Mitigation: Exposed upland soils must be effectively 

revegetated within one growing season Comment - Due to recent drought conditions, it may be difficult to 

“revegetate within one growing season.” The BLM must be flexible on this requirement as new 

reclamation techniques are applied by operators even as the drought persists to achieve the desired 

condition. It is important and certainly consistent with adaptive environmental management and best 

practices that innovation be encouraged. Providing flexibility will promote innovation and best practices 

by the industry. 

Response: Drought conditions can have an impact on reclamation. Revegatation of eroded soils needs to 

proceed as quickly as possible to prevent further erosion. Reseeding such areas may require several 

attempts throughout the year to take advantage of available moisture. The flexibility of the BLM 

permitting process and the performance-based process allows BLM to consider the conditions of an area 

and whether or not other methods are needed.

The final EIS has been revised as follows: “Soil retention measures, such as silt fencing, contour furrows, 

hydro-mulching, etc., shall be implemented on erosive upland soils at the time of disturbance. 

Revegetation shall be initiated on exposed soils on portions of the disturbance not needed for operations 

(i.e., cut and fill slopes, portions of well pads not needed for production operations after the well(s), etc.) 

within one growing season of the time the disturbance is not needed for operations.” Please note that even 

during drought years, operators can implement measures, such as watering, to achieve successful 

reclamation.

Comment: PAGE: 2-14 SECTION: 2.13.17 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Monitoring and 

evaluation strategy will be developed in coordination with local governments. For ongoing monitoring of 

vegetation, the conservation districts and grazing permittees will be involved. EXPLANATION:

Rangeland monitoring for instance is not a “new project” for which an APWG would be established. 

Response: Normal monitoring is presently open to interested parties. For additional information see 

Appendix 11.

Comment: PAGE:2-137 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE d. All vegetation 

treatments would be assessed for the potential to introduce invasive species before a treatment method 

was selected and when mechanical or chemical treatment is used, BLM will reseed and ensure noxious 

weed control is part of the treatment. EXPLANATION:Vegetation treatments should not be denied solely 

due to possibility of additional noxious weeds. The solution is reseeding and treatment.

A27-430 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Vegetation 

Response: The vegetation treatment would not be denied due to noxious weeds. The intent of this 

management action is to determine the best method to use. Subsequent reseeding would be part of the 

treatment if necessary and weed control is always applied as needed.

Comment: PAGE: 4-160, SECTION: 4.13.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Benefits from 

vegetation treatments not available in most SMAs.

Response: Treatments to benefit vegetation are generally allowed in SMAs. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-161, SECTION: 4.13.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Area specific 

objectives, including [Wildlife] (STRIKEOUT) and fisheries objectives would be addressed during 

reclamation activities, which would influence the plant seed mix selection used in reclaimed areas. 

[Impacts on vegetation from surface disturbing activities would not occur within certain wildlife buffers, 

which would help to retain native vegetation composition.] (STRIKEOUT) Managing important 

waterfowl areas for preferred waterfowl habitat would help to maintain and protect vegetation. 

Reclamation would be tied to site capability and vegetation selected to restore, enhance and maintain 

biological diversity. EXPLANATION: Arbitrary wildlife buffers should not limit revegetation or other 

management initiatives.

Response: This section involves wildlife and specifies the main objective species. The buffer area would 

help protect native species by reducing the amount of surface disturbing activity. In addition, the buffer 

would not preclude carrying out revegetation projects or other management initiatives.

Sagebrush 

Comment: It is likely BLM has utilized methods that overestimate sagebrush cover, causing it to pursue 

actions to reduce sagebrush cover that are not warranted. Sagebrush “treatments” are often ineffective and 

“typically do not increase the cover of grasses or forbs relative to untreated areas; in fact they may reduce 

grass and forb cover. Sagebrush habitats support a large array of native species of plants and wildlife and 

this important ecological service is not adequately acknowledged or analyzed in the DEIS. Fire is an 

infrequent ecological factor in sagebrush ecosystems and claims that increasing fire frequency in these 

habitats will “improve” them are scientifically unfounded. Sagebrush is important forage plant for many 

species, including due to the fact that it is abundant, an important consideration for any plant species to be 

deemed an important forage species. But this is not recognized in the RMP DEIS. Mature sagebrush 

communities provide many important ecological functions that can be lost with sagebrush “improvement” 

activities, not the least of which is the provision of crucial winter ranges for several species.

Response: The draft EIS discusses the presence and importance of sagebrush as forage and cover for 

numerous wildlife species. The areas unavailable for leasing or available with NSO stipulations are 

intended to protect sagebrush habitats on a landscape scale.

Comment: Item: Pages 4-181 – 189. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Comment: Within this section 

of the document there is inconsistency in assessing the value or impact of vegetation disturbances. On 

pages 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, and 4-185 the impacts of vegetation disturbance are described as 

negative (fragmentation, loss of species diversity, and suitable for generalist species only). On pages 4-

182, 4-189, and 4-90, however, the effects of vegetation disturbance are described as positive (habitat 

mosaics, increase of habitat values and species diversity, and suitable for use by early seral species). Why 

is habitat fragmentation bad while habitat mosaics are good when it is necessary to fragment the habitat in 

order to create mosaics? 

While the reduction of sagebrush habitats is likely to have negative effects on sagebrush obligate species, 

such disruptions will have positive effects on wildlife species that require more open or mixed 

Pinedale RMP A27-431 
Appendix 27—Vegetation Final EIS 

sagebrush/herbaceous habitats. What is overlooked in this presentation is the fact that there will be 

beneficial effects to non-sagebrush obligates that accrue from the reduction of sagebrush habitats. Prairie 

dogs, ground squirrels, burrowing owls, grassland birds (including mountain plovers), and most medium 

to small mammal species will all benefit from the opening up of the sagebrush monoculture. Also, prey 

base for raptor species is likely to be increased with the opening up of the sagebrush habitat.

Response: The argument set forth in this comment compares native ecosystem function with 

manipulations created by humans. In addition, sacrificing sagebrush obligate species with the justification 

that prairie species will take over is irresponsible. The beauty of a true landscape mosaic is that it is selfcontaining and naturally contains habitats for sagebrush obligates, grassland prairie obligates, and forest 

obligates, to name a few. Humans cannot create these systems better than Mother Nature, and bringing 

more anthropogenic features into the landscape only creates a situation of further manipulations.

Comment: Pages 2-40 - 2-41 Tables 2-3 Vegetative Manipulation Opportunities (by Prescribed Burn) 

and 2-4 Habitat Guidelines for Brush Control and Basic Assumptions for Table 2-4. Comment - The 

management guidelines for sagebrush “control” and their benefits to wildlife contradict the descriptions 

of oil and gas removal of sagebrush which are classified as “impacts”. It is specious to assume that 

sagebrush removed by oil and gas activities is an impact while sagebrush removed by BLM is beneficial. 

Clearly there is an opportunity for BLM to work with industry to achieve sagebrush control goals. In 

areas where BLM needs to remove sagebrush to benefit wildlife, we recommend that where appropriate 

these actions be coordinated with oil and gas operators so that sagebrush removal can be accomplished in 

a manner consistent with BLM’s objectives. This would be advantageous to BLM, wildlife and industry 

in areas where such needs are mutually beneficial. 

Page 2-151, Item a At the top of the page under Actions, the DEIS states, “Large contiguous patches of 

sagebrush habitat would be protected through NSO stipulations and unavailable areas (Map 2-9).” 

Comment - This statement is inconsistent with information presented in Tables 2-3 and 2-4 on Page 2-40 

and with “Basic Assumptions for Table 2-4” on Page 2-41. The statement on Page 2-151 requires that 

large contiguous patches of sagebrush be protected, while the guidelines in Tables 2-3 and 2-4 

recommend opening up stands of sagebrush to improve habitats for big game species and sage grouse. It 

would appear that the value of opening up stands of sagebrush is dependent upon who does it. As stated 

previously, coordination of sagebrush control between BLM and industry could be beneficial to all. 

Response: Sagebrush removed by oil and gas activities occurs in areas determined by the operator to 

promote gas production. The removal of sagebrush in these areas involves removing vegetation and 

topsoil on a site measuring from between 3 to 20 acres. The affected site does not produce vegetation for 

3 or more years, depending on drilling schedules and the number of wells drilled and completed on the 

site. In addition, the placement of numerous structures, the introduction of heavy vehicle traffic, and 

continuing noise and human presence compound the impact of vegetation removal on wildlife. In 

contrast, sagebrush removed by BLM in planned vegetation treatments occurs in areas most likely to 

recover and produce healthy vegetation for wildlife. Most plant root systems remain intact and vegetation 

production resumes shortly after the treatment. No topsoil is removed, keeping seed sources for native 

plants in place. Additionally, treated sites are managed to reduce other uses and impacts on the site to 

facilitate recovery of the vegetation community.

Comment: Undeniably sagebrush taxa are the most important organisms (keystone species) occurring 

naturally within the area considered by the DEIS. This is illustrated by the fact that these taxa are the 

climatic dominant over the majority of the landscape. They are ecologically influential on all other 

organisms, both flora and fauna, within the area. Specifically, this means that other species are found in 

this area because of sagebrush and not in spite of it. I hope to clarify why sagebrush has been called “a 

nursing mother to a host of organisms that range from microscopic fungi to large mammals” by Welch 

A27-432 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Vegetation 

(2005). The DEIS fails by any measure to recognize and address this point and the issues it encompasses. 

Consequently the proposed management plan (Alternative 4) and all other alternatives in the 

environmental impact statement (EIS) are inadequate relative to meeting BLM’s analysis and disclosure 

obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its planning and management 

obligations under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 

Response: The draft EIS discusses the presence and importance of sagebrush as forage and cover for 

numerous wildlife species. The areas unavailable for leasing or available with NSO stipulations are 

intended to protect sagebrush habitats on a landscape scale. The draft EIS and proposed RMP final EIS 

are intended to be use allocation and management documents, not exhaustive scientific review papers.

The goal to reestablish the role of fire in the ecosystem is broad enough to allow for future information 

gathering on sagebrush ecology and management.

Comment: Precisely what percentage of the area is dominated by sagebrush taxa is difficult to ascertain 

because of several confounding and confusing statistics provided in the DEIS. There are figures provided 

in the document (abstract) of 1,199,280 acres of federally administered mineral estate along with a total 

surface acreage of 922,880 acres administered by BLM within the planning area (abstract and table 3-27). 

The summary (p. v) says the preferred alternative 4 would make available 1,024,880 acres for oil and gas 

leasing and development. From these numbers evidently the total planning area is subject to this activity. 

On page v the DEIS states, “Intensively developed fields would be managed for intensive oil and gas 

activities while protecting wildlife habitats to the extent practicable”. This statement clarifies that 

environmental aspects and long term ecosystem stability rank below the leasing and development of gas 

and oil in the area regarding BLM’ priorities and concerns. 

Response: There will be extensive development in certain parts of the planning area. These areas would 

be managed for oil and gas in accordance with the National Energy Policy Act while protecting wildlife 

habitats as much as possible. In other areas that are not designated for extensive development there will 

be greater emphasis on wildlife habitat protection and ecosystem stability.

Comment: Further confusion is found in the fact that the text accompanying table 3-27 apparently does 

not agree with this table as to the percentages of the planning area occupied by different vegetative types. 

For example, table 3-27 provides acreages for Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, and 

desert shrub vegetation communities. These important vegetative types are stated to be found in the 

following percentages of total vegetation: 70% Wyoming big sagebrush, 10.7% mountain big sagebrush, 

and 6.2% desert shrub communities, for a total of 86.9% of the Pinedale resource area dominated by 

sagebrush taxa. This total of 80.7% in the big sagebrush communities collectively has to be considered 

with a conflicting value of 68.5% that is found upon reading the text that follows table 3-27. This text has 

the following percentages: 52% Wyoming big sagebrush, 16.5% mountain big sagebrush. Because 

terminology is changed to “low-density sagebrush communities”, for areas that evidently make up the 

tabled category of “desert shrub”, this category becomes even more confused. Evidently this vegetative 

type has some lower percentage as do the big sagebrush taxa. The percentages given in the text following 

table 3-27 cannot be calculated from either the tabled value for the total acreage of 922,880 acres nor can 

they be derived from the 1,199,280 acres of federally administered mineral estate lands.

Response: The acreages and percentages in the text in Section 3.13.1 have been updated to agree with 

Table 3-27, which provided vegetation acreage values for BLM lands within the planning area. Desert 

shrub consists of greasewood and saltbush species, not low-density sagebrush.

Comment: Most importantly, considering the over whelming importance of sagebrush, it is appalling to 

note that within the entire DEIS, BLM referenced only 4 papers pertaining to sagebrush (see literature 

cited and do not confuse sage-grouse with the much larger issue of sagebrush). None of these 4 papers 

Pinedale RMP A27-433 
Appendix 27—Vegetation Final EIS 

were peer-refereed, the normal process used by scientists to insure the information contained in a paper is 

worthy of publication in a scientific journal. This is particularly ironic because there are hundreds of 

scientific references that deal with different aspects of sagebrush ecology that should have been 

consulted. Welch (2005) reviewed over 1600 papers concerning big sagebrush alone. There is obviously 

no shortage of information about sagebrush for this DEIS. Further, to make this omission of background 

information for the keystone species in the Pinedale Resource Area where the ecosystem is potentially 

going to be subjected to many threatening activities is an enormous omission from this DEIS. This lack of 

consideration regarding the ecological implications of altering the sagebrush ecosystem that dominates 

87% of the concerned area (table 3-27) is very evident throughout the DEIS. This DEIS fails to consider 

the ecology of sagebrush ecosystems in general and specifically the keystone species, the sagebrush taxa 

This is a severe shortcoming in this DEIS and makes it scientifically deficient and of far less value for 

rational management decision-making.. When the keystone species are negatively impacted then other 

important and often critical ecosystem processes and functions also suffer as I discuss throughout this 

memorandum.

Response: Sagebrush is considered in all of the natural resource issues. For example, in sage-grouse 

habitats, BLM follows the Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Guidelines for Wyoming. These guidelines 

have taken into account and used recommendations from many referenced papers. This is true for many 

species, and these guidelines need to be consulted for the background information for this planning effort.

Comment: The DEIS contains no adequate descriptions of community characteristics within sagebrush 

types. BLM must correct this omission before an EIS can be finalized if the agency intends to 

comprehensively address the impacts facing this area as intended by NEPA.

Response: BLM is using the best available information without undertaking new inventories. As new 

data become available, BLM will incorporate them into its plans.

Comment: The discussion near table 3-27 mentions various sagebrush canopies of greater than 35%, 

surprisingly even in Wyoming big sagebrush areas. The likelihood is that traditional government 

methodology was followed (Bureau of Land Management 1996) to determine this sagebrush cover (the 

other alternative is that the coverage was estimated occularly or best guess). Thus, it is unlikely that the 

cover figures cited relate to most scientific literature that describes sagebrush thresholds required to 

sustain important wildlife populations.

Response: The 35% figure was stated as being for high-density Wyoming big sagebrush areas and not for 

all areas throughout the planning area.

Comment: Wambolt et al. (2006) concluded that sagebrush cover is currently determined with 

considerable variation in procedure. Such lack of standardization in sampling protocol makes monitoring 

of management objectives based on research methodology unreliable. This happens because the 

techniques used in research are more precise and carefully applied. Wambolt et al. (2006) found that 

percent cover in sagebrush habitats as determined by agency methods (Bureau of Land Management 

1996) was up to 2.6 times greater than that from research applications.

Response: BLM uses Technical Reference 1730-1 for measuring plant populations. The land cover data 

for this document is from Geographical Analysis Program (GAP) data, which was derived from satellite 

imagery and is not as accurate as on-the-ground methods. 

Comment: The Pinedale RMP and EIS must ensure that poor or inconsistent methodologies are not 

leading to inaccurate estimates of sagebrush cover, which precipitate uncalled for management actions.

A27-434 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Vegetation 

Response: The land cover data for this document is from GAP data, which was derived from satellite 

imagery and is not as accurate as on-the-ground methods but is the best available data that covers the 

whole planning area.

Comment: As Daubenmire (1970) stated, “range management in North America has been dominated by 

the narrow view that only the few plants of direct use or detriment are worth consideration”. Daubenmire 

went on to point out that simplification of big sagebrush communities by removal of the dominant 

(sagebrush) has to have significant negative consequences for other organisms. Wambolt et al. (2001) 

agreed when they noted significant habitat deterioration did occur on their 13 study sites where big 

sagebrush cover, density, and production were all significantly greater in the unburned portions in 34 of 

38 comparisons, even after as long as 32 years since burning.

Response: Big sagebrush cover and density will be less on burned areas for many years. BLM tries to 

provide mosaics in accordance with sage-grouse guidelines for sagebrush cover and density when 

planning prescribed burns.

Comment: The DEIS states that only 5609 acres in the planning area are at the potential natural 

community (p. 3-32), yet BLM proposes to kill more of the climatic climax sagebrush. The reality is 

BLM presents no data to demonstrate any knowledge of successional status and thereby, obviously does 

not account for normal ecosystem processes. The only conclusion must be that BLM either does not 

recognize the potential natural community or has no appreciation for the fact that this state will be 

reached much sooner without further human mistakes, or both.

Response: Many areas are managed for the desired plant community, which may not be the potential 

natural community for that area. The desired plant community will be determined by the resource 

objectives for that area.

Comment: Prescribed burning has been routinely used for a number of years now by agencies in 

sagebrush habitat types. Unfortunately this action is usually not supported by numerous science-based 

studies. There is much scientific evidence documented regarding the negative impacts of fire on these; 

habitats and the organisms that depend upon them (Byrne 2002, Connelly et al. 2000, Fischer et at 1996, 

Nelle et al. 2000, Peterson 1995, Baker 2006). This DEIS consistently makes claims that are not based on 

science regarding such matters as the many points touted as positive about burning sagebrush. By 

deductive logic it is implied that other activities (oil and gas related) will not negatively impact the 

ecosystem by also destroying sagebrush and obviously sagebrush habitat that is so very important for 

many other organisms. The fact is that BLM has produced no data or science based examples to the 

contrary (noted by the void of literature consulted for the DEIS) showing the claimed positive effects of 

fire in the sagebrush ecosystem and instead is relying on unsubstantiated conventional wisdom originating 

from long held bias or conjecture. 

Response: The “Wyoming Guidelines for Managing Sagebrush Communities with Emphasis on Fire 

Management” was issued on November 15, 2002. This was an interagency document sponsored by the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department and BLM. Interagency cooperators were the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department, Wyoming BLM, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service. 

This document has an extensive bibliography listing the scientific publications used for this document. It 

discusses the sagebrush ecosystem in Wyoming, management concerns and goals, sagebrush degradation 

issues, as well as providing management guidelines project implementation in the various primary 

sagebrush species in Wyoming. This document provides the overall strategies for implementing not only 

Pinedale RMP A27-435 
Appendix 27—Vegetation Final EIS 

prescribed fire, but other treatments within the sagebrush ecosystem. Any sagebrush manipulation should 

fall within the guidelines in this document. 

Comment: On fire, a dozen sagebrush and sage-grouse scientists (PACWPL policy paper SG-02-02 p. 

11) stated that “there is no empirical evidence supporting the notion that fire has positive effects on sagegrouse over the short or long term.” Additionally, they pointed out that fire removes large sagebrush 

plants that provide theiral and security cover as well as food, and reduces important insect populations 

vital to sage-grouse diet. Unfortunately, fires tend to burn the most productive and best habitats within an 

area, usually where grass and shrub cover are greatest, leaving the unburned portions to be the less 

productive sites of inferior habitat quality (Connelly et al. 2000).

Response: Prescribed burns are planned using the sage-grouse guidelines for sagebrush, which were 

developed to protect sage grouse and their habitat.

Comment: Usually, sagebrush dependant species, for example sage-grouse, use only remaining 

sagebrush stands in burned habitats, thereby, reducing the area of occupation and their populations, if they 

can persist at all following fire. Byrne (2002) documented that the avoidance of these burned areas by 

sagebrush dependant species goes on for decades. Despite the fact that many agency personnel have 

supported the use of prescribed burning of sagebrush communities to supposedly enhance habitat for 

sagebrush dependant species, there is no adequate scientific basis that demonstrates this occurs (Nelle et 

al. 2000, Fischer et al. 1996)

Response: Prescribed burns are planned so as to provide habitat for numerous species. These species 

include sagebrush-dependent wildlife species, other wildlife species, and livestock. 

Comment: It is imperative that the facts in Baker (2006) not be ignored when discussing the concepts put 

forth by the DEIS. Quoting, Baker (2006) “combining the fire-scar and recovery evidence, the best 

available estimates of fire rotation are 325-450 years in low sagebrush, 100-240 in Wyoming big 

sagebrush, 70-200 years or more in mountain big sagebrush.” Baker further states that “these estimates 

are likely low estimates because they could not be corrected for targeted sampling and they use a 

conservative estimate of adjacency correction, but fire rotation in sagebrush cannot be estimated more 

precisely at this time using available data.” He further expands that “given the long rotations that 

characterized pre-Euro American fires in sagebrush, fire exclusion likely has had little effect in most 

sagebrush communities.” Further, “particularly in Wyoming big sagebrush, a program of prescribed 

burning is unwarranted or inadvisable if maintaining and restoring sagebrush landscapes and sagebrushdependant species is the goal. Correcting for fire exclusion by reintroducing fire is likely not a common 

sagebrush restoration need”. Wyoming big sagebrush is the single most important taxon in the Pinedale 

Resource area.

Response: Prescribed burning is planned for resource and multiple use objectives and to obtain a desired 

plant community. When prescribed burns are planned in sagebrush areas, guidelines for sage-grouse and 

other wildlife are included in the planning.

Comment: The DEIS states (p. 4-160) that “vegetation treatments would be designed to reestablish the 

natural role of fire in the ecosystem.” Until BLM recognizes what that role really is for sagebrush 

communities (i.e., a very limited, infrequent role) it appears that just the opposite will occur. Fire will be 

introduced at unnatural and scientifically unjustified scales and frequencies. Unfortunately, the tendency 

is for the uninformed public to think that if sagebrush needs to be reduced by fire and other means, as so 

often stated in this DEIS, then obviously, there is no reason for them to be concerned about sagebrush 

habitat loss to oil and gas related issues or other management actions. However, because the underlying 

A27-436 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Vegetation 

bases for these claims has no scientific grounding, the further implied conclusion that other sources of 

sagebrush loss are not harmful also has no basis. 

Response: The LANDFIRE project has produced information on the fire return intervals and fire 

severity. It provides a basis, using the biophysical setting, to provide historical and “best science” data on 

the location of the various vegetation types pre European settlement and comparisons between their 

“historical” range and structure/composition with what is found on the landscape today. BLM uses the 

fire regime and condition class, the biophysical setting, and the existing vegetation type gathered from 

this research to analyze the potential and need for implementing a project in any biophysical setting that is 

funded by the fuels or forestry program. 

Comment: Large mammals known to consume big sagebrush include domestic sheep, mule deer, 

pronghorn, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, and desert bighorns (Welch 2005). Numerous small 

mammals and a number of birds including sage-grouse, dark-eyed juncos, homed larks, and whitecrowned sparrows rely heavily on sagebrush foliage. Although, it is easy to overlook the importance to 

lesser organisms in ecosystem function, it is apparent that sagebrush plays a major role in supporting 

many of these organisms including fungi and insects. Welch and Criddle (2003) cited 31 fungus species 

and 52 species of aphids that receive nourishment from big sagebrush alone. While my list is not implied 

to be complete, it does illustrate that overlooking the importance of sagebrush as a forage source for fauna 

of sagebrush habitats is to leave unacknowledged one of its more important contributions to the 

ecosystem. Failure to acknowledge this widespread importance as a forage species will lead to an 

inappropriate management plan and actions, or at a minimum uninformed guidance and actions.

Response: BLM considers sagebrush an important species in the ecosystem. Management actions in the 

alternatives that limit availability of areas for oil and gas leasing, limit surface disturbance and 

fragmentation, and require reclamation are intended to conserve sagebrush habitats on a landscape scale.

Comment: Forage value for sagebrush consumers will not be enhanced by favoring younger plants 

through artificial control methods. This has been proven by Wambolt (2004) when he determined the 

crude protein level and digestibility of 3 big sagebrush taxa were not enhanced in young sagebrush plants 

compared to mature individuals. Mountain, Wyoming and basin big sagebrush subspecies were studied. 

This research noted the lack of forage quality improvement in young sagebrush plants over older ones 

described as decadent by some. Again, this illustrates that land managers should not have faith in 

conventional wisdom that has been untested, particularly where there is research that has reached contrary 

conclusions. However, the apparent problem in this DEIS is the lack of understanding of what knowledge 

is available regarding sagebrush and its ecosystem. Research like this clearly indicates that sagebrush 

nutritional levels (or those of other species) will not increase by manipulating vegetative cover to favor 

early successional stages rich with young plants. The likelihood of sustaining populations of any animal is 

dependant upon providing an adequate source of forage. That means not only high quality forage 

hopefully, as available in sagebrush taxa, but also a good quantity of forage, which obviously is provided 

through the climax dominant species on any landscape if palatable like sagebrush .

Response: BLM has made appropriate changes to the management actions for vegetation management in 

the final EIS.

Comment: Collectively, the points discussed above relating to forage values taken with the high 

attributes of sagebrush to furnish thermal and security cover for animals (details under Sagebrush-Mature 

Community) are largely why sagebrush habitats are more often than not the location of “critical winter 

ranges.” Many wildlife species including the following game animals: sage-grouse, mule deer, pronghorn, 

elk, and bighorn sheep, commonly depend on sagebrush winter ranges that meet requirements of both 

forage quantity and quality. In summary, sagebrush is not only the most abundant forage available, but 

Pinedale RMP A27-437 
Appendix 27—Vegetation Final EIS 

also the most nutritious and highly digestible forage during the majority of the year including winter. 

Many animals have evolved with sagebrush, and in fact, rely on it as a staple in their diets. The DEIS fails 

to explore the full ramifications of the various alternatives to critical winter ranges for wildlife in general 

and especially for non-game species, particularly in the context of forage relationships and the nutritional 

contribution of sagebrush to wildlife. This failure renders the DEIS inadequate to meet the requirements 

of full analysis and disclosure of all significant environmental impacts established by NEPA and the 

management alternatives presented are inadequate to meet BLM’s obligations under FLPMA. 

Response: The draft EIS considers the impacts of oil and gas development and other potential uses on 

crucial wildlife winter ranges. However, it is not possible to provide exact figures for these impacts. The 

draft EIS predicts that mule deer use of the winter range on the Mesa, for example, will decline; but it is 

not possible to completely predict the impact of drilling and production activity on the deer population.

There are no alternatives to crucial winter ranges or the characteristics of crucial winter ranges. Crucial 

winter ranges are a combination of characteristics including vegetation, elevation, aspect, and exposure 

that make vegetation available to animals during the winter months. For mule deer, pronghorn, and sagegrouse, the characteristic vegetation is sagebrush. Crucial winter ranges cannot be created or replicated in 

areas that do not possess these characteristics.

Comment: Item: Page 2-151. Item a. at top of page under Actions states that: “Large contiguous patches 

of sagebrush habitat would be protected through NSO stipulations and unavailable areas (Map 2-9).” 

Comment - This statement is inconsistent with information presented in Tables 2-3 and 2-4 on Page 2-40 

and with “Basic Assumptions for Table 2-4” on Page 2-41. The statement on Page 2-151 requires that 

large contiguous patches of sagebrush be protected, while the guidelines in Tables 2-3 and 2-4 

recommend opening up stands of sagebrush to improve habitats for big game species and sage grouse. 

Response: Sagebrush removed by oil and gas activities occurs in areas determined by the operator to 

promote gas production. The removal of sagebrush in these areas involves taking out vegetation and 

topsoil on a site measuring from between 3 to 20 acres. The affected site does not produce vegetation for 

3 or more years, depending on drilling schedules and the number of wells drilled and completed on the 

site. In addition, the placement of numerous structures, the introduction of heavy vehicle traffic, and 

continuing noise and human presence compound the impact of vegetation removal on wildlife. In 

contrast, sagebrush removed by BLM in planned vegetation treatments occurs in areas most likely to 

recover and produce healthy vegetation for wildlife. Most plant root systems remain intact and vegetation 

production resumes shortly after the treatment. No topsoil is removed, keeping seed sources for native 

plants in place. Additionally, treated sites are managed to reduce other uses and impacts on the site to 

facilitate recovery of the vegetation community.

Comment: The science supporting the PACWPL statement is lost in the Pinedale DEIS. There appears to 

be no concern for the sagebrush ecosystem at the landscape scale within the planning area. The BLM has 

generally regarded the sage-grouse as a “sensitive species” and regarding that status, it would seem that 

the lack of concern for the grouse’s habitat in the Pinedale planning area is difficult to understate. The 

PACWPL authors were 12 scientists that have researched sagebrush ecosystem management and sagegrouse management throughout lengthy careers. These scientists sought the criticism of additional peers 

that were also knowledgeable of this system before authoring this policy paper for PACWPL. The 

PACWPL paper should be acknowledged by BLM and its implications and application explored in the 

EIS and implemented in the RMP. 

Response: Management actions in the alternatives that limit availability of areas for oil and gas leasing, 

limit surface disturbance and fragmentation, and require reclamation are all intended to conserve 

sagebrush habitats on a landscape scale. BLM has incorporated the habitat management guidelines for 

A27-438 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Vegetation 

sage-grouse to the extent practicable, given BLM’s requirement to manage multiple resources and 

resource uses. All available literature was reviewed and considered in development of the draft EIS.

Comment: The theme is conveyed throughout the DEIS that a newly developing stand of sagebrush 

following control methods (especially fire) will be more valuable for wildlife than the existing maturing 

community. There is no logic or other scientific basis for such conjecture. However, there is an enormous 

amount of evidence to the contrary showing that the mature sagebrush stands are more beneficial habitat 

for wildlife. The basis for this is found in the facts that truly mature sagebrush communities will provide a 

number of positive attributes for wildlife such as vertical stratification of habitat niches for numerous 

animals requiring that characteristic. The principles of optimizing habitat benefits in mature communities 

are found in Walhno and Schoen (1980) and synthesized by Welch (2005) in terms of the sagebrush 

literature. 

Response: Sagebrush control is planned to form a mosaic pattern that provides different habitats for 

various species. BLM guidelines provide for a large area of mature sagebrush stands with openings to 

provide many edges and to provide different densities and covers of sagebrush and grass.

Comment: Truly mature communities can be recognized by plant turnover due to natural mortality from 

shrub longevity being exceeded, with subsequent replacement of climax species by younger plants. 

Interspersion of age classes on a plant to plant scale is many times more advantageous than artificially 

induced age classes among different stands that would be created by sagebrush control techniques. In fact 

such a true climax habitat would mimic the attributes of old growth forest that biologists know is so 

enormously valuable to many wildlife species. Artificially created stands will only perpetuate the evenaged stands across the landscape. Most even-aged sagebrush stands today are due to the ill-advised 

sagebrush reduction practices of past decades. The DEIS informs that such practices will continue in the 

Pinedale area. The importance of ceasing such practices is even more important than in the past when 

considered together with the serious habitat consequences sure to be realized with the level of oil and gas 

development that is contemplated.

Response: Prescribed burns are planned to provide a mosaic to prevent even aged stands and provide 

varied habitats for wildlife.

Comment: The DEIS does not acknowledge the high ecological values of mature sagebrush 

communities. Until BLM acknowledges these values and conducts a proper inventory of existing 

communities and their successional status it will be impossible to adequately plan for viable sagebrush 

habitats. Consequently, many desirable environmental conditions dependent on viable sagebrush 

ecosystems also will go ignored. 

Response: BLM does value mature sagebrush communities, and they are part of all planning objectives.

Many decisions, such as those making large areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing, are part of an effort 

to conserve sagebrush ecosystems on a landscape scale. BLM used the best available information in 

formulating the alternatives in the draft EIS.

Comment: Quoting from page 4-252 of the DEIS, “Development activities under all the alternatives 

would result in the removal of unique attributes of vegetation communities and would also reduce the 

ability of vegetation resources to support other resource values.” This is a very brief, yet well stated, 

summation of what should be expected if large scale oil and gas leasing and development activities occur 

in the Pinedale area. The results would be very devastating in the 87% of the area under BLM 

management that is sagebrush habitat. Unfortunately this recognition of consequences is not considered 

throughout the DEIS.

Pinedale RMP A27-439 
Appendix 27—Vegetation Final EIS 

Response: Changes in vegetation is addressed in project planning. As a result, this RMP does not allow 

for large-scale oil and gas leasing throughout the entire planning area.

Comment: My concerns for the Pinedale area are much broader than for a single species. However, in the 

sagebrush ecosystem many of my concerns could be addressed by providing attention to the guidelines 

for sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2000). If the known requirements for sage-grouse were followed, other 

sagebrush dependant organisms would benefit and prosper. At present the DEIS does not accommodate 

these sage-grouse guidelines. In fact, BLM does not appear to have adequate background information on 

this “sensitive” species to address their needs as detailed in these guidelines. The inadequate “buffer 

areas” proposed around known areas of importance for sage-grouse are particularly disturbing. The failure 

to accommodate the guidelines is not only a serious omission for the sage-grouse, but also for the 

sagebrush ecosystem in its entirety.

Response: BLM is required to adhere to the MOU in place between BLM and the Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) regarding sage-grouse management. BLM follows the guidelines 

for sage-grouse developed by the state. 

Comment: Results indicated that >60% of 86,590 acres of shrub communities inventoried were in fair to 

poor condition and appeared incapable of perpetuating themselves. While big sagebrush (Artemisia 

tridentata) utilization of 30-35% is considered proper for sustained use by browsing animals, sagebrush in 

these shrub communities averaged 45% utilization and current BLM management and that proposed in 

the RMP allows up to 50% utilization by livestock alone. Other species such as mountain mahogany 

(Cercocarpus montanus), Gardner’s saltbush (Atriplex gardneri), and winterfat (Ceratoides lanata) were 

utilized to a much greater degree. Cundy (1989) suggested the following factors contributed to 

deteriorated shrub conditions in the region: 

• Fire suppression 

• Over-utilization by wildlife and livestock 

• Habitat loss associated with energy development 

• Drought conditions 

Secondly, the remaining shrub communities may be over-utilized due to the loss of habitat from energy 

development, potentially degrading the quality of the remaining habitat. This supports the need to provide 

allotment closures and or buyouts in order to mitigate the impacts of energy development. .

Response: Any changes in grazing management will be determined on a site-specific basis, using 

monitoring information, to conform to the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Comment: Reality is that none of the DEIS alternatives allow for ecosystem maintenance. All 

alternatives offered will allow significant erosion of the ecosystem’s renewable natural resources. BLM 

should remember its purpose to provide stewardship for public lands that will insure their continuing 

multiple benefits. To do this BLM will have to develop and adopt a new management alternative that 

recognizes both the severity of proposed impacts on the sagebrush ecosystem and the considerable 

science available upon which to base an adequate in-depth consideration of these impacts. 

Response: BLM has analyzed alternatives that recognize impacts on the sagebrush ecosystem. Because 

BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of valid existing oil and gas leases, there will 

be impacts on the sagebrush ecosystem. These impacts are discussed in Chapter 4 in the vegetation and 

wildlife sections.

A27-440 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Vegetation 

Comment: Consistent with Cundy (1989), Clause evaluated habitat conditions in the Bear River 

Watershed in southwest Wyoming and found plant communities exhibited signs of heavy use, low 

production, and lacked diversity among age-classes. Clause (1999) attributed the overall poor habitat 

conditions to lack of natural disturbance (i.e., fire) and heavy ungulate utilization. Habitat conditions 

documented by Cundy (1989) and Clause (1999) likely reflect current habitat conditions across the 

Pinedale Resource Area. 

Most shrub communities in the Pinedale Resource Area are dominated by big sagebrush, although small 

areas of mixed shrubs, such as bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) and mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus spp) 

can be found along the foothills of the Pinedale and Piney Front. Historically, fire was a natural 

component of most sagebrush ecosystems, with fires typically occurring at 20-30 year intervals (Clause 

1999). According to Cundy (1989) fire suppression and the reduction or elimination of fine fuel loads by 

livestock grazing has precluded natural fire. Cundy (1989) suggests the ability of these sagebrush 

communities to regenerate themselves and remain productive has greatly diminished. 

Thus, sagebrush stands are often monotypic, old-aged, varyingly decadent, and possess little or no 

seedling regeneration. These habitat conditions and the effects on sensitive species such as sage grouse, 

pygmy rabbits, and other sage obligates are not adequately addressed in the DEIS. In addition to poor 

shrub conditions in the area, the WGFD has identified aspen regeneration as a major habitat concern. A 

substantial amount of aspen stands in the Pinedale Resource Area occur on lands administered by the 

BLM. Aspen is unique and especially important because it is the only upland deciduous tree species that 

occurs in Wyoming and it provides key habitat for wildlife. Loss of aspen in western Wyoming has 

largely been due to conifer encroachment and over-utilization by domestic livestock and elk. 

Aspen is generally considered a seral species in the Rocky Mountain region, pioneering disturbed areas, 

but eventually being replaced by more shade-tolerant conifers. Most aspen stands require periodic 

disturbance to remove conifers and induce sufficient suckering for stand replacement. While, researchers 

have suggested fire suppression has led to aspen stand deterioration across the Intermountain West, heavy 

browsing by livestock may have severe effects on aspen growth and regeneration. 

Response: Prescribed burning is planned to reduce even aged stands and open up the area to produce 

varied habitats for numerous wildlife species. BLM is working with the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department to address aspen and conifer encroachment, open these areas, and rejuvenate these aspen 

woodlands.

Comment: Big sagebrush (Artr) is eaten by domestic sheep and cattle, but has long been considered to be 

of low palatability to domestic livestock, a competitor with more desirable species, and a physical 

impediment to grazing. The range management community has been conducting a war against big 

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) for over 50 years, but none of the impacts associated with a loss of 

habitat for sagebrush obligates has been disclosed in the DEIS. The DEIS ignores the negative impacts 

and insists that such projects are merely “controversial.” The EIS must consider the best available science 

and provide the required habitat components for sensitive species.

Response: Specifically, the literature highlights the importance of sagebrush to a variety of wildlife 

ranging from sage-grouse and the almost forgotten pigmy rabbit to big game. Wildlife researchers have 

argued that the importance of sagebrush as forage, and effects of foraging on sagebrush, are not fully 

appreciated. Regarding the sagebrush steppe ecosystem, West makes the following remark: “Some of it 

has been so degraded by excessive livestock grazing and burning that its relationship to its origins is no 

longer easily recognizable.”

Pinedale RMP A27-441 
Appendix 27—Vegetation Final EIS 

Comment: Furthermore, the ecology of mountain big sagebrush in the West has been altered by livestock 

grazing, widespread invasion by exotic annuals, and perhaps climate change. Rasmussen and Griner noted 

that the highest sage grouse nesting success in Strawberry Valley of central Utah occurred in mountain 

big sagebrush stands having 50 percent canopy cover. Ellis et. al. reported male sage grouse loafing areas 

with 31 percent canopy cover. Additionally, Katzner and Parker reported that areas of high pygmy rabbit 

activity occurred in basin big sagebrush stands having 51.1 percent canopy cover, and areas of medium 

activity occurred in Wyoming sagebrush stands of 42.7 percent. Other obligates such as sage thrasher, 

Brewer’s sparrow, and sage sparrow prefer big sagebrush canopy cover of 20 to 36 percent.

For sagebrush species other than big sagebrush, Walchek reported that a population of Brewer’s Sparrows 

were living in an area of silver sagebrush having canopy cover of 53 percent. Petersen and Best found sag 

sparrows nested where big sagebrush cover was 23 percent in the vicinity of nests and 26 percent in the 

general study area. They further noted that all nests were found in big sagebrush plants and large, living 

shrubs were strongly preferred. 

As previously shown, dense stands of sagebrush are important to many sagebrush obligate species, many 

of which are listed by the BLM as sensitive species, but the BLM has failed to consider the needs of these 

species. Moreover, the BLM has violated NEPA by failing to disclose the past impacts that have led to 

the characteristics of the sagebrush communities in the project area, i.e. open canopy sites, and the 

indirect impacts such characteristics have had on sensitive species. 

Since sagebrush communities on private lands have been converted to agricultural or other uses or are not 

being managed in a manner compatible with sagebrush dependent wildlife, the importance of the PFO 

maintaining the integrity of sagebrush habitats on BLM lands within the planning area to provide taller, 

denser stands for mule deer, pronghorn, and sage grouse is extremely important. The cumulative impacts 

associated with private land development make the habitat provided by BLM lands significantly 

important, and this should be pointed out in the FEIS. 

Big sagebrush canopy cover values tend to decrease in the presence of livestock grazing , not increase as 

the DEIS maintains, and that in turn can be detrimental to a variety of wildlife species including sage 

grouse. In fact, the just cited researchers found the following: 

• Big sagebrush canopy cover was higher inside grazing exclosures and was decreased outside 

exclosures, 

• Perennial grasses and sagebrush canopy cover were significantly higher in ungrazed vs. grazed 

plots, 

• After grazing had been removed big sagebrush canopy cover and grass cover increased 

significantly. 

Anderson and Inouye found that contemporary state-and-transition models do not fit the sagebrush 

ecosystem because viable remnant populations of native grasses and forbs are able to take advantage of 

improved growing conditions when livestock are removed. They found further that despite depauperate 

and homogenous conditions of permanent plots in 1950, after 45 years vegetation had been anything but 

static, clearly refuting claims of long-term stability under shrub dominance. Mean richness per plot of 

ALL growth forms increased steadily in the absence of domestic livestock grazing. Grasses and forbs 

increased significantly.

Given these findings, perhaps the BLM should analyze the impacts of long-term active management and 

its impacts on sagebrush communities and obligates compared to the impacts of removing livestock and 

allowing these communities to recover naturally. Additionally, since the continued “management” of 

A27-442 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Vegetation 

sagebrush has led to many of the situations scientists now agree are threatening these ecosystems, the 

removal of livestock from sagebrush communities in less than satisfactory condition, i.e. with open 

canopies, should be a seriously considered alternative in the EIS.

Any vegetation treatments proposed in sagebrush habitat should consider the requirements of the species 

that rely on this habitat type. The science is clear that these types of treatments that the EIS proposes to 

allow detrimentally impact sensitive species and are counter to science. These types of projects should not 

be allowed in sagebrush steppe habitats and all alternatives should reflect as much.

Response: BLM plans vegetation treatments that consider wildlife objectives and follow guidelines for 

species, such as sage-grouse, that address the plant community including the sagebrush component.

Comment: PAGE: 4-191 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE There has been 

research documenting the benefits of vegetation manipulation for big game species; [however, there has 

been no documentation on the effects or the need of such manipulations in the planning area to improve 

sage-grouse nesting habitat.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: If this is true then statements about habitat 

degradation for sagebrush are not true.

Response: Habitat can be degraded in situations where traditional vegetation manipulations are not 

helpful. The viability of traditional vegetation manipulation methods does not determine whether habitats 

are degraded.

Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health, Proper Functioning Condition 

(PFC) 

Comment: PAGE: 2-11 SECTION: 2.3.9 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Vegetation will be 

managed to maintain or improve ecological range condition, and to maintain or increase forage for 

livestock grazing, while providing for the maintenance or improvement of wildlife habitat, soil 

conservation, watershed values, and riparian areas. Vegetation will be managed to meet or maintain to 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and in cooperation with efforts by conservation districts and 

NRCS to conserve and manage vegetation species. Vegetation will be managed consistent with capability 

of soil, climate, geography and altitude. EXPLANATION: Vegetation management is not limited to 

endangered, threatened or candidate species. The discussion is too narrow. The first sentence is taken 

from MSA 2-11.

Response: This particular section in Common to All Alternatives only addresses federally listed, 

proposed, and candidate species and BLM’s obligation under the Endangered Species Act (of 1973) 

(ESA). For other vegetation management actions, please see the vegetation and livestock grazing sections 

in the various alternatives.

Comment: PAGE:2-137 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Maintain and/or enhance 

native vegetation community health, composition, and diversity in conformance with Wyoming Standards 

for Healthy Rangelands. Reclaim disturbed areas to desired plant communities consistent with the 

underlying use and in coordination with the grazing permittee. Monitor reclamation success and enforce 

standards when they are not met. EXPLANATION: Vegetation management needs to conform to 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Reclamation needs to be monitored and enforced. 

Identification of desired plant communities needs to be co-ordinated with grazing permittee.

Response: This section is a goal for vegetation management. The Wyoming Standards for Rangeland 

Health are the standard for monitoring rangeland health. Following these standards would be the means 

for achieving the goal and not the goal itself.

Pinedale RMP A27-443 
Appendix 27—Vegetation Final EIS 

Comment: PAGE:2-138 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Objective 4 Treat 100,000 

acres of vegetation to maintain important vegetation types and to conform to Wyoming Standards for 

Healthy Rangelands. 

Response: BLM has to conform with the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health and adding it here in 

the objective would be unnecessary.

Comment: PAGE: 4-151, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Implementation of the Wyoming 

Standards for Rangeland Health as the minimum acceptable conditions for public rangelands would 

increase the health and diversity of vegetation communities. Impacts on vegetation resulting from 

livestock grazing management on BLM-administered lands would include the removal of forage by 

livestock, which could alter the amount, condition, plant community composition, and vigor of vegetation 

in grazed areas. [Grazing during the growing season or summer months could result in lower vigor of 

desired species and a change in species composition.] (STRIKEOUT) Concentration areas, including 

locations of salt and supplemental water, would result in soil disturbance, vegetation removal, and altered 

plant community composition. Livestock grazing could be used as a tool to manipulate and improve plant 

community composition. Livestock management activities include travel via OHVs and horses and the 

use of livestock trailers. These activities could alter the cover and composition of vegetation if repeated 

use occurs in the same area over time, especially during wet conditions. EXPLANATION: Statement is 

out of context and appears calculated to mislead. Game and wild horses graze during growing season or 

summer months. Not true as a rule. Planing area evolved under grazing regime. Growing season grazing 

unlikely to adversely affect plants. There may be situations when it is more effective to graze spring and 

fall (such as desert rangelands) and not graze during the hot summer months. But this is not true for all 

rangelands in the planning area and summer grazing per se does not cause lower vigor or change in 

species composition.

Response: Depending on the grazing regime, grazing during the growing season or summer months could 

result in lower vigor of desired species and a change in species composition.

Comment: PAGE: 3-33, SECTION: 3.6.4, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Identify causes for riparian 

areas being at risk or non-functioning. EXPLANATION: PFC methodology requires assignment of causal 

factors. /For example, Cottonwood Common allotment which has 11⁄4 miles of non-functioning riparian 

area is in a year-long elk range.

Response: Identifying the cause of degradation is part of the PFC process as well as the Wyoming 

Standards for Rangeland Health and does not need to be added in this section.

Comment: PAGE: 4-161, SECTION: 4.13.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE In addition, under 

Alternative 4 all riparian areas would be managed to meet, make progress towards meeting or maintain 

Wyoming Standards for healthy Rangelands as measured by [or exceed] (STRIKEOUT) PFC.

EXPLANATION: Rule directs management to meet or make progress towards meeting. Given high 

numbers of elk and moose in area, it will be difficult to exceed standards when RMP precludes most 

management tools as well, e.g. prolific use of VRM Class II.

Response: This is the riparian section and its impacts to vegetation are being discussed. PFC is the 

minimum level, and the riparian areas are to be managed to meet this standard. PFC is part of the 

Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health, but this section is only looking at the impacts in riparian area 

and PFC is the proper mechanism.

A27-444 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Vegetation 

Grazing 

Comment: PAGE: 4-149, SECTION: 4.13.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Environmental impacts 

associated with the management alternatives are caused by land use activities within the planning area. 

Impacts on vegetation resources are generally the result of activities that consume vegetation or remove 

and disturb soil and vegetation.

Response: The consumption of vegetation is considered a vegetation removal activity.

Comment: PAGE: 4-151, SECTION: 4.13.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Riparian areas in 

parts of the planning area are more susceptible to grazing impacts during the hot season (July and early 

August). Grazing animals (livestock, game, and wild horses) [Livestock] (STRIKEOUT) are naturally 

attracted to areas with water and thermal cover. Many grazing management strategies, such as rotation, 

deferment, rest from use, and the manipulation of season of use and grazing intensity, would be 

implemented to manage vegetation composition, cover, and vigor to maintain or achieve Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands as measured by PFC in riparian areas or achieve Standards DPC on 

upland plant communities. The implementation of riparian pastures and exclosures would increase the 

density, age class, and cover of desirable riparian plants, including willow, cottonwood, and herbaceous 

wetland/riparian plants within the exclosures. EXPLANATION: Bias again comes through. PFC and 

DPC are not standards, they are measured by which it is determined whether standards are met.

Response: This section of the impacts is the livestock grazing section and game and wild horses are not 

included here. Separate sections address game and wild horses. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-151, SECTION: 4.13.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Range 

improvements such as water developments, fences, exclosures, and vegetation treatments would result in 

minor and short-term disturbances to vegetation, including loss of vegetation cover and short-term 

changes in plant composition and vigor adjacent to each project. Improved grazing management and 

distribution of grazing animals achieved through range improvements could provide periods of rest for 

plant growth and seed production to maintain plant vigor. EXPLANATION: It is a matter of distribution 

as well as management.

Response: Grazing management includes the distribution of grazing animals. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-151, SECTION: 4.13.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Grazing by livestock, 

wildlife, and wild horses [Livestock grazing ] (STRIKEOUT) could maintain or create habitat for 

sensitive plants by reducing vegetation competition. However, [livestock] (STRIKEOUT) grazing could 

potentially reduce the occurrence of some species because of trampling, consumption, and general site 

degradation. EXPLANATION: Again remove the bias!

Response: This is the section on livestock grazing impacts and so it is appropriate to only mention 

livestock. Separate sections address grazing by wildlife and wild horses. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-151, SECTION: 4.13.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Livestock would 

contribute to the spread of weeds. Weed seeds could either become attached to livestock or be ingested 

and transported to other areas. Areas where animals concentrate and disturb the soil would be particularly 

vulnerable to infestations of weeds. Range improvements that disturb the soil surface would provide 

locations for weeds to become established. Overgrazing of native vegetation in areas where BMPs have 

not yet been implemented could increase the susceptibility of an area to weed infestation.] (STRIKEOUT) 

Wind, birds, grazing by livestock, wildlife, and wild horses, facilitate the transportation of noxious weed 

seeds. Where soil is disturbed there is the risk of infestation of weeds. Similarly overgrazing can facilitate 

infestations. However, grazing plans that promote healthy rangelands and vegetation and coordination 

Pinedale RMP A27-445 
Appendix 27—Vegetation Final EIS 

with local weed and pest control districts would create conditions resistant to the spread of weeds. 

EXPLANATION: This paragraph is singularly ignorant. Research has long established that noxious 

weeds are carried by birds, wind, and wildlife to a much greater extent than livestock. Indeed one only 

has to look at noxious weed infestations in wilderness areas where there is no grazing to understand that 

livestock play a minor role.

Response: This is the section on livestock grazing impacts and so it is appropriate to only mention 

livestock.

Comment: PAGE: 4-160, SECTION: 4.13.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Implementation of 

this alternative would attempt to minimize [ensure that] (STRIKEOUT) impacts on vegetation from 

livestock grazing were minimized but would do little to reduce impacts from other grazing animals so the 

total environmental benefit would be minimal. Total AUMs would be maintained at 107,907. [Livestock] 

(STRIKEOUT) Range improvements such as water developments, fences, and exclosures would be 

designed to support vegetation objectives and minimize impacts on vegetation. Restrictions in the form of 

VRM Class I and II objectives and wildlife habitat restrictions would reduce expected benefits 

significantly. EXPLANATION: This is unlikely to occur with restrictions on range management and 

projects. EIS must disclose real effects or change arbitrary restrictions adopted in the RMP

Response: This section is the impact section for livestock grazing and as such only this resource is being 

discussed. Livestock improvements can be changed in the final to range improvements.

Comment: PAGE: 4-152, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE The use of livestock exclosures to 

protect seeps and springs would preclude grazing by livestock but not necessarily other grazing animals in 

these areas. Developed water sources on uplands would be used to improve distribution of grazing 

animals [reduce livestock concentrations] (STRIKEOUT) in wetland/riparian areas. This would help to 

improve species composition, vigor, and cover in wetland/riparian habitat. EXPLANATION: BLM needs 

to remember that livestock are not the only grazing animals in the planning area.

Response: The type of exclosure would determine the types of animals excluded. Normal livestock 

exclosures would exclude only livestock and other grazing could occur. This has been rewritten for the 

final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-9 CHANGE: FORAGE – All browse and herbaceous [foods](STRIKEOUT) 

biomass available and acceptable to grazing animals, which may be grazed or harvested for feeding 

purposes. EXPLANATION: Technical correction needed to reflect standard definition and clarify that 

forage consists of living growth.

Response: The definition is appropriate as given in the draft EIS. 

Comment: BLM has never even looked into the issue of the relationship between its typical riparian 

greenline stubble height standard of 3 – 4", usually applied to Nebraska sedge, and the effects of applying 

this standard on adjacent riparian plant community productivity. Carter (1998) showed that before 

greenline N. sedge had been reduced in height to the standard of 6", riparian grasses had been reduced to 

2" stubble height and 89% of stream banks had been trampled, compacted or were actively eroding into 

the stream. Monitoring data from the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (USDA 1993) included the 

observation that a Nebraska sedge stubble height of 7.6" corresponded to an estimated 70% use of 

riparian grasses. Lile et al (2003), compared clipping of N. sedge to stubble heights of 2" and 4" during 

early season, late season and multiple clippings to both heights. Late season use or 2" stubble height did 

not allow recovery. Only the 4" early season use achieved the 4" criteria, but did not regrow to meet the 

6" criteria by the end of the growing season. This shows that season-long or late season use does not 

A27-446 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Vegetation 

allow sufficient time for re-growth and that 3-4" stubble heights measured on greenline sedges are not 

effective in protecting riparian vegetation.

Response: The RMP does not propose any general utilization limits or stubble heights for the planning 

areas. These management guidelines are determined on a site-specific basis. Monitoring of greenlines and 

the use of the Standards for Rangeland Health are used to determine the health of the range and riparian 

areas. When the cause of any degradation is found, adjustments to wildlife or livestock can be made to 

increase the health of these areas.

Fire, Prescribed Fire 

Comment: PAGE:2-142 SECTION:Obj. #2 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise: Objective 2 Use 

prescribed fire and WFU to meet vegetation goals and to return the ecosystem to [presuppression](strikeout) composition, structure, and function where possible. EXPLANATION: Presuppression plant composition is neither possible nor necessarily desirable. 

Response: To return the landscape to historical fire regimes would benefit the vegetation. Where 

returning the landscape to historical fire regimes is possible and is the desired plant community, 

prescribed fire is one tool to accomplish this. If the pre-suppression community was low density 

sagebrush and grass, historical fire regimes could be possible and could be accomplished through a 

prescribed burn.

Weeds and Pest Control 

Comment: Prohibit the use of insecticides, herbicides, pesticides and other chemical treatments in the 

PRA when such chemicals may leach into and gradually accumulate in near-surface ground waters and 

pose long-term contamination and health risks to water users.

Response: Pesticides are used according to the EPA instructions on the label. Precautions and restrictions 

are used near water.

Comment: PAGE: 4-154, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: However, the designation of SMAs would 

increase popularity and actual use in these areas, resulting in increased potential for vegetation 

disturbance [and removal and weed proliferation.] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Incorrect as written, 

noxious weeds carried by wildlife and birds and wind so role of recreation is minor.

Response: This sentence refers to increased use by people, which carries a greater potential for vegetation 

removal and weed proliferation. There are other vectors for weed dispersal, but this sentence only deals 

with impacts from people.

Comment: PAGE: 4-185 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Forage loss and increased 

human activity from surface disturbance and other disruptive activities would result in reduced wildlife 

species diversity, modifications in population distribution or numbers, or possible habitat abandonment. 

](STRIKEOUT) Reclaimed areas would [be more vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds and would 

](STRIKEOUT)not initially provide the same level of habitat function, forage, or cover that the original 

area provided. EXPLANATION: Data do not support either statement. Reclaimed areas as part of RMP 

are treated for noxious weeds so are less rather than more vulnerable.

Response: This section is about surface disturbing and disruptive activities. Loss of habitat would result 

in the impacts listed. Also, in the short term, the area would be more vulnerable to invasion by noxious 

weeds necessitating the increased use of weed treatments. This would decrease as reclamation is 

achieved.

Pinedale RMP A27-447 
Appendix 27—Vegetation Final EIS 

Comment: PAGE: 4-188 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Continued 

coordination with local weed and pest control agencies in implementing management actions to control 

and prevent the reoccurrence and spread of invasive and noxious weeds would maintain the native 

vegetative species that provide wildlife forage and habitat. Certain species of noxious weeds are 

poisonous and potentially fatal to some wildlife species. EXPLANATION: RMP needs to continue 

current MOUs with local weed and pest control districts.

Response: Coordination with the weed and pest districts takes place throughout the state, not just at the 

field office level. Because coordination is statewide, it will be maintained. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-221 SECTION: WTPD RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: Omits 

impacts on vegetation; not discussed in Chapter 2; discussion of noxious weeds inaccurate;

Response: The impacts in this section are those to the white-tailed prairie dogs (WTPD) ACEC. Impacts 

to vegetation are included in the vegetation impacts section. The WTPD ACEC is found in Chapter 2 on 

pages 2-106, 2-108, and 2-109.

Oil and Gas 

Comment: PAGE: 4-151, SECTION: 4.13.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Mineral resource 

development impacts on vegetation resources would include long- and short-term impacts, small and 

localized removal of vegetative surface cover, and major disturbances covering several hundred acres. 

Mineral development would reduce fracture vegetation communities, change plant community structure 

and diversity, and alter vegetation landscapes. Long-term impacts would mostly be associated with 

permanent structures and construction of roads. Increased erosion and decreased vegetation cover would 

potentially occur from soil compaction and the channelization of surface runoff in ruts and road ditches. 

[Areas below mid-slope roads would become drier, which would reduce plant productivity and potentially 

change species composition.] (STRIKEOUT) Effects from minerals management could be reduced by 

voluntary COAs on APDs within these areas, which would be based on site-specific analysis and would 

establish specific, EXPLANATION: Roads increase not reduce water. BMPs must be voluntary; 

improperly assumes BLM can impose BMPs.

Response: Roads on slopes would intercept water and carry it away thus not allowing it to continue down 

slope and thereby drying out the lower slopes. BMPs are voluntary while Conditions of Approval (COAs) 

attached to an application for permit to drill (APD) are requirements that must be met for approval of the 

APD.

Comment: Elsewhere, (p. 4-255) the DEIS recognizes (Berger et al 2006) that 6 of 8 migration corridors 

between the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the Green River are already lost. The further disruption 

of migratory habitats is a certainty with the level of oil and gas leasing and development allowed under 

alternative 4. Language in the DEIS generally has the tone taken on page 153 that begs the question of 

why is BLM using this as an opportunity to promote the killing of the ecosystem’s keystone taxon?

Response: Oil and gas leasing, in accordance with the Energy Policy Act and the nation’s needs, will 

proceed while BLM protects, as much as possible, wildlife and their migration routes.

Conifer and Aspen 

Comment: We are concerned with aspen and conifer and the emphasis on mechanical treatments or in the 

case of aspen, prescribed fire. We addressed criteria for structural stages and grazing utilization levels in 

conifer under our discussion of goshawk above. The failure of the RMP to address the causes of conifer 

invasion of aspen and the role of livestock in eliminating aspen and accelerating conifer invasion have not 

A27-448 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Vegetation 

been addressed. Research shows that livestock are a major causative factor in creating these degraded 

conditions.

Response: Conifers invade aspen stands because of fire suppression, natural vegetation succession, and, 

in some cases, overbrowsing of aspen sprouts by both livestock and wildlife. It should be noted that adult 

aspen trees exert a suppressing effect on sprouts. In many cases, killing the parent trees through fire or 

other treatments is required to release sprouts to grow to maturity.

Soil 

Comment: PAGE: 4-151, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Reclamation will include stockpiling soil 

but if held for several years, the soil will be spread out to keep seeds and microbes viable. 

EXPLANATION: Organic components of soil die if held in anaerobic stockpile for too long.

Response: BLM has considered spreading out these topsoil stockpiles before. However, the area they 

require is so large that it is generally impractical and ends up disturbing much more area.

Pinedale RMP A27-449 
Appendix 27—Visual Resources Final EIS 

Visual Resources 

General Comment Responses: No GCRs are associated with this category.

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes, Alternatives 

Comment: Page 3-20 notes that the quarter-mile buffer led to concentration of high-contrast and highly 

visible development disturbances along the edges of the trail corridor, to the extent that management 

“failed to maintain the integrity of setting and .7: integrity of place of the historic trail.” The statement is 

an accurate description of past impacts, but its implications for continuing management of the historic 

trail are unclear. Please link the statement more directly to its proposed remedy in the C.? preferred 

alternative. For example, is the VRM II designation intended and sufficient to prevent this kind of 

development pattern from continuing?

Response: BLM will continue to manage contributing portions of the Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff as 

VRM Class II where the classification process identified the rails as VRM II (Buckskin Crossing to the 

Anticline, New Fork to Green Rivers; South to Piney Creek valley to the USFS boundary). Even where 

the trails are in VRM Class III areas (the Anticline, Deer Hills gas field), BLM will continue to assess 

impacts to settings and mitigate visual intrusions to the extent possible. 

Comment: VISUAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Because much of the Visual Resources 

Management directly affects the community of Pinedale, we support the most stringent VRM restrictions 

on energy and other industrial development, particularly with lands within visual sight of Pinedale and 

residential areas. It appears that with all of the alternatives, oil and gas drilling would be permitted within 

one to two miles of Pinedale’s town borders. We are concerned that the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 

4, map 2-30) has only a VRM Class III the second least restrictive for this category for lands immediately 

surrounding the town. 

Response: As stated in Alternative 4, the majority of lands south of Pinedale and visible below the 

ridgeline tops are assigned VRM Class III objectives. BLM recognizes the importance of scenic quality to 

the public and area residents. BLM planning guidance directs BLM to consider all resources and values in 

addition to scenic values. Given the likelihood of fluid mineral development within the viewshed of 

Pinedale, it would not be practical to prescribe VRM II objectives where existing and expected 

development may preclude the ability to manage to VRM II objectives. Regardless of the assigned VRM 

objectives, BLM must require mitigation of visual intrusions to the maximum extent practical. 

Comment: The BLM’s visual resources management under Alternative 3 may unduly restrict oil and gas 

development. VRM I or II restrictions on over 410,000 acres of the Pinedale Resource Area could restrict 

or eliminate oil and gas development. See RMP DEIS, pg. 4-72 (noting that areas with VRM I or II 

restrictions would be largely unavailable for mineral development). Even existing leases could be 

impacted if operators are not able to secure ROWs across lands with new VRM objectives. The BLM 

must significantly increase the number of acres with VRM TTT and IV designations.

Response: For comparison purposes and to comply with NEPA, a reasonable range of alternatives must 

be considered. Alternative 3 visual resource management objectives generally provide for higher 

standards (VRM Class II) with the intent to maintain the existing landscape characteristics. 

Comment: The BLM’s proposed visual resources management under the preferred Alternative is overly 

restrictive. Imposing VRM I or II restrictions on over 258,610 acres of the planning area would 

significantly restrict or eliminate oil and gas development, even on existing leases. See RMP DEIS, pg 4-

72 (noting that areas with VRM I or II restrictions would be largely unavailable for mineral 

A27-450 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Visual Resources 

development). In particular, APC is concerned about the significant increase in VRM I and II areas in the 

PAPA and the impact such restrictions may have upon existing leases, either directly or indirectly. While 

the BLM cannot alter development rights on existing leases, BLM may indirectly limit operations by 

refusing to authorize ROWs in new VRM I and II areas. Finally, the VRM restrictions, like other 

stipulations, should be waived or eliminated in Intensively Developed Fields.

Response: For comparison purposes and to comply with NEPA, a reasonable range of alternatives must 

be considered. Very few federal acres within the PAPA are recommended for classification as VRM Class 

II. Additionally, nearly all the proposed VRM Class II acres are located outside the area of high potential 

fluid mineral development. BLM is currently allowing development of fluid mineral resources with 

appropriate mitigation within areas classified with VRM Class II objectives.

Comment: PAGE: 4.14.7, SECTION: 4-165, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE VRM Class II 

objectives EXPLANATION: Statements about VRM Class II objectives will not be accurate once 

planners follow manual. Also overstates benefits from limiting OHV use Fire, existing roads have greater 

impacts on visual resources. No data to show how visible OHV areas are.

Response: See the updated text in this section of the final EIS. 

Comment: PAGE: 4.14, SECTION: 4-162, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [VRM objectives would be 

achieved.] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Objectives cannot be enforced unless and until planners 

follow manual. Terms and direction in manuals and instruction memoranda are binding on BLM 

employees. Robert Glenn, 124 IBLA 104, 108 (1992); Ellis Ferguson, 69 IBLA 352 n.2 (1983). In 

addition, to the extent the Interior Board of Land Appeal (“IBLA”) interprets statutes and regulations as 

requiring or prohibiting certain actions, such interpretation establishes Interior Department policy which 

is fully binding upon the BLM until it is altered by competent authority. Milton D. Feinberg, 40 IBLA 

222, 228 (1979).

Response: It is not possible to analyze the impacts of establishment of VRM classes without this 

assumption that the objectives would be adhered to. This is an appropriate assumption to make to support 

the impact analysis.

Comment: PAGE:2-138 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Manage public lands in 

accordance with VRM objectives established in accordance with BLM guidelines. Minimize the impacts 

on visual resources where appropriate. EXPLANATION: BLM policy does not support minimizing 

impacts on visual resources in all cases. 

Response: The management goals are appropriate as stated in the draft EIS.

Comment: PAGE:2-138 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Objective 1 Manage the 

public lands in a manner that protects the quality of the scenic values of those lands based on the visual 

resource inventory and as modified by the applicable land uses. EXPLANATION: VRM classes are not 

based on the inventory, which is only the first step. Classes must reflect underlying land use.

Response: All resources and resource uses are managed to reflect a variety of values and uses, including 

visual resources. Visual resource categories are chosen to reflect other land uses. This does not need to be 

stated implicitly here, because it is contained in BLM rules, regulations, and guidance.

Comment: Page: 2-156, RECOMMENDED CHANGE:f. The Management Area would be classified 

VRM Class[es II and] (strikeout) III (Map 2-30). EXPLANATION: RMP fails to document whether 

Pinedale RMP A27-451 
Appendix 27—Visual Resources Final EIS 

VRM Class II is consistent with underlying land use. Class II precludes most range improvements and 

other changes. VRM Class II should be very limited or not at all.

Response: VRM Class II would not prohibit developments, but would require siting and design to 

conform to VRM objectives. VRM Class II objectives are appropriate for those portions of the Ross Butte 

area visible from the Green and New Fork Rivers, where they would be applied (see Maps 2-30 and 2-

33).

Comment: PAGE: 4.36, SECTION: 4.5.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE EXPLANATION: 

See Comments Ch. 2-##28 & 29. VRM Class II is not accurate because assign the class to areas under 

current leases and livestock grazing which are not consistent with Class II. VRM is being used as a 

surrogate and RMP did not follow handbook process.

Response: BLM planning guidance and policy does not exclude multiple resource allocations within 

areas with VRM Class II objectives. The visual evidence of livestock grazing management generally does 

not attract the attention of the casual viewer. VRM classifications do not impact livestock grazing 

permits.

Comment: PAGE: 4-49, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD dust abatement to air 

quality mitigation. Dust abatement methods will reduce particulates and adverse impacts on visibility.

Response: Dust abatement methods are included in the BMPs in Appendix 5.

Light Pollution 

Comment: The numerous floodlights that accompany oil and gas development have had the effect of 

significantly reducing the nighttime viewing experiences of our students and instructors. Many have 

commented on the inescapable glare from lights on the valley floor. NOLS feels that light pollution is a 

significant issue that contributes to the deterioration of a once-unencumbered view, and should be 

addressed in the RMP.

Response: The ability to substantially shield the nighttime sky from the ambient light created by fluid 

mineral drilling operations is somewhat limited by operational safety requirements. The final EIS 

discusses the impacts of night lighting more fully.

Mitigation, Vegetation Treatments 

Comment: In section 3 .1 for visual resources. The EIS should expand upon view sheds and their 

identification, whereby upon removal drilling rigs the permanent infrastructure is painted and 

camouflaged with neutral natural colors indigenous to the area so their presence can be visually 

camouflaged from distances to reduce the view shed impacts. Such as digital camouflage patterns that can 

be developed from digital photographs from surrounding areas near the well sites and incorporated into 

the paint pattern that would be specific for that site

Response: The visual mitigation you suggested may reduce the visual effect created by gas well drilling 

operations and facilities equipment. The application of camouflage techniques would be especially 

appropriate for use in sensitive viewsheds such as urban areas and areas of high scenic quality. However, 

the specific mitigation you described is more appropriately addressed at the project planning level versus 

the land use planning level.

Comment: PAGE: 4.14.3, SECTION: 4-162, EXPLANATION: Discussion proves that VRM Class II 

will preclude vegetation projects and management that would otherwise have environmental benefits.

A27-452 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Visual Resources 

Response: VRM Class II would not prohibit vegetation treatments. Treatments are conducted in VRM 

Class I areas when compatible with long-term vegetation goals of the area.

Comment: PAGE: 1-152, SECTION: 4.13.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE VRM Class I and 

II designations would [minimally] (STRIKEOUT) impact the timing and extent of vegetation treatments 

such as prescribed burns. VRM classifications would also prohibit or limit some surface disturbing 

activities which may [and thereby] (STRIKEOUT) protect vegetation but harm vegetation enhancement 

and restoration measures elsewhere. EXPLANATION: No “minimally” about it, no vegetation treatment 

if not consistent with low visibility. VRM Class II will greatly limit tools to improve vegetation 

conditions and EIs needs to disclose that fact.

Response: The application of vegetation treatments such as prescribed burns could be consistent with 

VRM I or II objectives when the action is deemed complementary with the area VRM objectives that 

sustain long-term visual quality. Vegetation treatment plans for areas with high scenic values must 

address the visual concerns; however, restrictions are generally few when potential long- term impacts are 

mitigated.

Water, Watersheds, Wetlands 

Comment: Wetland Areas Map with Buffer Zones: The purpose of this map is to show how little area is 

available for natural gas development by using the BLM mandated five hundred (500) foot setbacks from 

surface water and riparian areas. By using the 500 foot surface and riparian setbacks one sees the obvious 

visual problem of there being only hill tops and steep slopes available to drill from. I have heard it said 

that the wooded areas would provide visual screening of potential gas development. Gas development in 

the wooded areas of such sensitive wildlife areas is not a viable compromise. The RMP considers this a 

Class II visual resource area. As such, how can it even be considered for gas development?

Response: It is reasonable to limit development of oil and gas wells in riparian areas, particularly when 

the chemicals used in well drilling are considered. Many of the existing gas fields contain few riparian 

areas. 

Trails and Historic Trails 

Comment: The DRMP indicates the integrity of visual setting along national historic trails would be 

protected up to 2 miles on either side of a trail to conform to a VRM Class II designation; however, there 

is no justification about why protection of national historic trails was increased from the current 1⁄4 mile or 

visual horizon, to 2 miles. EM urges BLM to clarify how current leases and operations that have the 1⁄4 

mile or visual horizon stipulation would be affected. At a minimum, BLM should present justification for 

the change because the 2 miles on either side of a trail would result in the loss of significant volumes of 

natural gas from production while providing no tangible benefit for historic trails. 

Response: For comparison purposes and to comply with NEPA, a reasonable range of alternatives must 

be considered. Chapter 4 addresses the potential loss of fluid mineral resources from this management 

action.

Comment: The BLM should revise the 4-mile VRM II designation along the Lander Trail. The BLM has 

not demonstrated this stipulation is necessary or justified. Further, the BLM must clearly acknowledge 

that the new VRM II restriction will not apply to development activities of any kind on existing leases. 

The BLM cannot retroactively impose a stipulation on existing leases through site-specific conditions of 

approval. Doing so may violate operators’ existing rights and could even lead to an illegal taking of 

EOG’s existing property and contract rights.

Pinedale RMP A27-453 
Appendix 27—Visual Resources Final EIS 

Response: The VRM designations were crafted using an interdisciplinary team of specialists, including 

lands and minerals staff, and were developed empirically. If and when proposals under BLM’s permitting 

authority come forward with VRM Class II areas, BLM will evaluate the proposal and apply the 

appropriate mitigation treatments to preserve or maintain VRM Class II viewsheds. The 4 miles along the 

Lander Trail is not a VRM designation, but a viewshed monitoring and impact assessment threshold. To 

be consistent with Lander, Casper, and Kemmerer BLM offices, this viewshed evaluation zone was 

increased to 6 miles.

Comment: Page 2-114, (1)(h)Management Objective and Actions “Segments of the Lander Trail where 

the setting does not contribute to its eligibility for the NRHP would be managed as VRM Class III.” 

Comment - Where trail segments and settings do not contribute to eligibility for the trail to be designated 

on the NRHP, Class IV management may be more appropriate than Class III, particularly if portions of 

the trail have already been compromised. BLM must maintain flexibility in management prescriptions.

Response: The VRM Class III designation for these Lander Trail segments was made as part of the VRM 

classification process across the Pinedale Field Office area. The subject areas rated out as VRM Class III 

independent of the trail or its condition. This is in part due to operator commitments concerning 

successful reclamation of “temporary” intrusions. BLM will certainly maintain flexibility in management 

prescriptions where the Trail’s setting has been compromised, but we will also strive to mitigate any 

impacts. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-20 SECTION: 2.4.4 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE The integrity of the 

visual setting of national historic trails would be protected from surface disturbing activities by relocating 

or redesigning projects within 2 miles of either side of the trail to conform to a VRM Class II designation, 

when it is consistent with the land use allocated in the RMP. EXPLANATION: Map 3-01 shows a 4 mile 

buffer for the eastern trail segments. The DEIS is generally quite confusing as to the visual buffer. It shifts 

between 1⁄4 NSO and two mile buffer. Map 3-01 needs to be corrected and the two mile buffer can only be 

justified if it is consistent with other land use allocations along the trail segments. BLM cannot apply 

VRM Class II to leases issued with the VRM stipulation, if it would be inconsistent with other rights to 

drill and develop. SUWA v. BLM, 144 IBLA 70, 83 (1998) (holding the lease issued with VRM Class II 

stipulation could be developed without following Class II condition, because it was inconsistent with 

lease decision). CLG also notes that the scale of the VRM Classes suggest that BLM did not in fact 

follow the manual guidance in assigning the classes. Most of the area along the trail segments is already 

leased. The balance consists of private minerals and BLM cannot deny access to the private mineral 

estate.

Response: Map 3-01 does not show VRM classifications or buffers along trails. The Preferred 

Alternative would apply both a 1⁄4-mile NSO stipulation and a 2-mile (on either side of the trail, for a total 

of 4 miles) VRM Class II area. VRM Class II would not prohibit development, but would require siting 

and design of developments to make them less visible or intrusive on the landscape. Nowhere in the RMP 

would BLM attempt to apply new stipulations to existing leases. The VRM classifications in all the 

alternatives were developed according to guidance. A number of parcels of BLM-administered mineral 

estate along the trails are currently unleased. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-20 SECTION: 2.4.4 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise Map 2-30 to remove 

VRM Classes for private land. Revise Map 2-30 to remove VRM Classes for areas already under federal 

lease. EXPLANATION: Other segments of the trail run through private land, where BLM cannot impose 

VRM Class II. Several segments purport to impose VRM Class II on trail segments that cross private 

land. Map 2- 30 needs to be revised.

A27-454 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Visual Resources 

Response: VRM classes are drawn over the planning area as a whole for ease of visualization. Please see 

page 1-9 of the draft EIS: “The planning decisions in the RMP will apply only to BLM-administered 

public land surface and mineral estate in the planning area, including BLM-administered minerals that 

underlie nonfederal lands (split estate). BLM makes no assertions relative to the allocation of or 

management of visual resources on private lands.

Comment: The BLM should revise the 4-mile VRM II designation along the Lander Trail. The BLM has 

not demonstrated this stipulation is necessary or justified. Further, the BLM must clearly acknowledge 

that the new VRM II restriction will not apply to development activities of any kind on existing leases. 

The BLM cannot retroactively impose stipulation on existing leases through site-specific conditions of 

approval. Doing so may violate operators’ existing rights.

Response: The acknowledgment of pre-existing lease rights is appropriately stated as such within the 

document.

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-22: “Under this alternative, the impacts on the viewshed of the 

Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff would be less than under Alternatives 1 and 2, but the impacts would be 

greater than under Alternative 3.” Recommendations:The document provides no basis for the statement. 

Delete or provide basis for statement.

Response: The impact would be greater than Alternatives 1 and 2, and less than Alternative 3, because 

the area of restricted development to protect the viewshed of the trail would be larger than in Alternatives 

1 and 2 and smaller than in Alternative 3.

Comment: PAGE: 2-114 SECTION: 2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete ¶f entirely. f)The 

Lander Trail and its visual historic setting would be protected through establishment of a VRM\ Class II 

designation for about [84,380](strikeout) acres of public land within 1⁄4 [2](strikeout) miles of contributing 

segments of the trail (Map 2-30). EXPLANATION: RMP fails to make appropriate determination as to 

importance and sensitivity. 2 miles is not warranted by RMP, law or rules. With exception of eastern trail 

segment to Sand Springs Camp, the area along the trail is under lease. BLM Manual and IBLA case law 

preclude application of VRM Class II to lands already allocated for surface use for leasing. SUWA v. 

BLM, 144 IBLA 70 (1998).

Response: The RMP is the place for BLM to make VRM and other determinations. The VRM 

designations were crafted using an interdisciplinary team of specialists, including lands and minerals 

staff, and were developed empirically. The 2 miles under discussion has been changed to 3 miles on either 

side of the trail as a baseline distance for determining potential impacts to trail or other settings. This is 

consistent with BLM’s VRM classification process in which the distance between foreground and middle 

ground is considered to be 3 miles. BLM will not violate lease rights, but BLM also has the legal 

obligation to assess impacts of specific proposals made in visually or other sensitive areas due to postlease considerations. BLM will also design and implement the appropriate mitigation should avoidance 

prove to be unfeasible. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-22, SECTION: 4.3.7,RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Under this alternative, the 

integrity of the setting of the Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff may achieve greater preservation [would be 

preserved] (STRIKEOUT) through intensive viewshed analysis that would determine the necessary width 

and type of protective buffers required to avoid affecting the intact portions of the trails, as modified by 

land use allocations. Under this alternative, the impacts on the viewshed of the Lander Trail and Sublette 

Cutoff may [would be ] (STRIKEOUT) less than under Alternatives 1 and 2, but the impacts would be 

greater than under Alternative 3. REVISE to provide for 1⁄4 mile viewshed along trails. EXPLANATION: 

RMP fails to follow VRM procedures. See Comments Ch. 2-28-29. Before imposing Class II, BLM must 

Pinedale RMP A27-455 
Appendix 27—Visual Resources Final EIS 

first assess compatibility with underlying land use. As the FEIS states on 4-14, Class II generally 

prohibits or constraints surface disturbance. For lands under oil and gas leases, BLM cannot legally 

impose Class II VRM unless there is an NSO stipulation. Similarly, these public lands are allocated for 

livestock grazing. As recognized by IBLA and conceded by BLM in litigation, drilling would not be 

permitted in Class II VRM. SUWA v. BLM, 144 IBLA 70, 85 (1998). The IBLA panel quoted the VRM 

handbook which states: The visual resource inventory process provides BLM managers with a means for 

determining visual values. The inventory consists of a scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, 

and a delineation of distance zones. Based on these three factors, BLM-administered lands are placed into 

one of four visual classes. These inventory classes represent the relative value of the visual resources. 

Classes I and II being the most valued, Class III representing a moderate value, and Class IV being of 

least value. The inventory classes provide the basis for considering visual values in the resource 

management planning (RMP) process. Visual resource management classes are established through the 

RMP process for all BLM-administered lands (see also Manual 1624.3). During the RMP process, the 

class boundaries are adjusted as necessary to reflect the resource allocation decisions made in RMP’s. 

Visual management objectives are established for each class. (See Section VB.) (BLM Manual Handbook 

8410-1, at 1) (emphasis added) There is no indication in the RMP /DEIS that the VRM Class objectives 

have been adjusted based on the resource allocation decisions. This is true for areas classified as VRM II 

but under lease or subject to grazing permits. This omission is especially problematic for the trail 

segments where the RMP proposes a 2 mile Class II VRM. 

Response: VRM analysis and classification guidance was followed in preparation of the draft EIS. The 

Pinedale Field Office is currently developing gas leases in VRM Class II areas. Presence of oil and gas 

leases does not negate BLM’s responsibility to manage surface resources. VRM classifications would not 

impact livestock grazing permits.

Comment: PAGE: 4-83, SECTION: 4.7.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE to 1⁄4 mile VRM 

buffer. EXPLANATION: Again FEIS uses 2-mile buffer along Lander Trail for VRM Class II while there 

is a 4-mile buffer for oil and gas development. Neither can be justified.

Response: The 2-mile VRM classification would extend on either side of the national historic trails, for a 

total width of 4 miles.

Comment: PAGE: 4-71, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: CLARIFY VRM Class II for 

Lander Trail REVISE to 1⁄4 mile. [The proposed 4-mile-wide VRM Class II designation for contributing 

segments of the Lander Trail would potentially affect well pad, production facility, road, and pipeline 

placement within this corridor, to meet the VRM Class II objectives. Where the terrain does not provide 

visual screening of mineral development facilities from the viewpoint of the trail, those facilities could be 

required to be located either entirely outside the VRM Class II buffer zone or in visually screened areas 

within the buffer. Fluid mineral resources beyond the reach of offsite development would have the same 

impact as described above. The impacts related to an unrecoverable loss of federal mineral resources 

because of drainage from nonfederal leaseholds would be the same as previously described. Again, this 

would not apply to existing leases, but could apply to postlease actions.] (STRIKEOUT) 

EXPLANATION: Contradicts EIS 2-115; See also Comment Ch. 2-49 (no authority to impose Class II 

where contradictory land use allocations, e.g. oil and gas leases). Note even though local governments 

believe that VRM Class II objectives are unlawfully applied, EIS uses 2- mile and 4-mile Lander Trail 

buffer, which is contradictory.

Response: The analysis provided is sufficient to address the impacts to minerals attributed to the 

management of visual resources. 

A27-456 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Visual Resources 

Oil and Gas 

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-72: “The VRM Class I and II areas would be largely unavailable for 

mineral development. Much of the VRM Class II area overlaps the Large Block NSO Areas and 

Unavailable Areas, which have little or no development potential. However, the VRM Class II area 

includes known areas of hydrocarbon production on the Pinedale Anticline along the New Fork River and 

the Lander Trail, and it also expands into known areas of oil and gas production along the Lander Trail in 

the Deer Hills and South Piney Creek Canyon area. The VRM Class II management requirements could 

impact postlease actions (APDs, ROWs, and geophysical NOIs), unless imposition of the restrictions 

would deprive the leaseholder(s) of their legal right to develop any existing leases in the restriction area. 

Where meeting the Class II objective necessitates the use of offsite (directional drilling) techniques, both 

product recovery cost and drilling risk would increase. Leasable mineral resources beyond the technical 

or economic reach of offsite methods would become unrecoverable. Substantial areas would potentially 

be beyond the economic or technical reach of directional drilling, and the underlying fluid mineral 

resources would be unrecoverable. The VRM Class III and Class IV related impacts would be the same as 

under Alternative 1.” Recommendations: Due to the inadequate maps, readers cannot review this section. 

General Concerns regarding document decisions and validity of existing rights.

Response: The maps provided are adequate for the public to perceive the difference between the 

alternatives.

Comment: The BLM suggests on page 2-37 that a program would be initiated to “improve the visual 

quality of oil fields in the planning area by working with the companies to reduce the visual impact of 

existing facilities.” The vast majority of EOG’s leases are located in areas with a VRM IV or III 

classification, which specifically authorize “major modifications” to the existing character of the 

landscape. See RMP DEIS, pg. 3-105. While EOG takes reasonable steps to reduce visual impacts to the 

extent practical and safe, the BLM cannot impose restrictions on existing leases or facilities that are 

inconsistent with its lease rights. Further, it is inappropriate for the BLM to attempt to develop new 

requirements or mitigation for the No Action alternative, which is intended to reflect current management 

directions. The BLM must delete, or at least clarify, the language on page 2-37.

Response: The management action noted in Alternative 1 is representative of current management 

direction.

Comment: Section 4.14 - Visual Resources:The BLM has not adequately analyzed the impacts VRM I 

and VRM II restrictions will have upon future oil and gas development. Because VRM I and II 

restrictions would essentially foreclose mineral development, see RMP DEIS, pg. 4-72, the BLM must 

analyze the socioeconomic effect such designations would have upon the planning area, and account for 

the loss of mineral production and revenues. Adoption of Alternative 3 or 4 would make development 

nearly impossible in 30 to 40% of the planning area, including large sections of the PAPA.

Response: No oil and gas leases would be available in areas classified as VRM Class I, which is limited 

to wilderness study areas. The RFD for oil and gas for each alternative takes into account any reduction in 

the number of wells that could be drilled due to VRM or other restrictions; therefore, the socioeconomic 

impact of any reduction in wells is included in the impact analysis.

Comment: The BLM’s proposed visual resources management under Alternative 3 is unnecessarily 

restrictive. Placing VRM I or II restrictions on over 414,000 acres of the planning area would 

significantly restrict or eliminate oil and gas development, even on existing leases. See RMP DEIS, pg 4-

72 (noting that areas with VRM I or II restrictions would be largely unavailable for mineral 

development). In particular, operators may be unable to develop existing leases if the BLM is precluded 

from approving ROWs to facilitate development across newly created VRM I and II areas that did not 

Pinedale RMP A27-457 
Appendix 27—Visual Resources Final EIS 

exist at the time the lease was granted. The imposition of unreasonable restrictions on existing leases may 

result in illegal takings of EOG’s contractual and property rights. The BLM must significantly increase 

the number of acres with VRM IV restrictions, particularly in existing oil and gas fields.

Response: For comparison purposes and to comply with NEPA, a reasonable range of alternatives must 

be considered. It is reasonable to analyze expanded VRM Class I and II restrictions.

Comment: While more reasonable than Alternative 3, the BLM’s proposed visual resources management 

under Alternative 4 is still unnecessarily restrictive and may impose impediments to oil and gas 

development. Placing VRM I or II restrictions on over 258,610 acres of the planning area would 

significantly restrict or eliminate oil and gas development, even on existing leases. See RMP DEIS, pg 4-

72 (noting that areas with VRM I or II restrictions would be largely unavailable for mineral 

development.). The imposition of unreasonable restrictions on existing leases may result in illegal takings 

of EOG’s contractual and property rights. The BLM must significantly increase the number of acres with 

VRM IV restrictions, particularly in existing oil and gas fields.

Response: It is reasonable to place restrictions on commercial activities such as oil and gas development 

in order to mitigate impacts to surface resources.

Comment: The BLM must also revise the acres of lands that will be subject to VRM II restrictions across 

the planning area. As the BLM admits on page 4-72, VRM I and II areas “would be largely unavailable 

for mineral development.” By imposing VRM I and II restrictions on approximately 30% of the resource 

area, the BLM is essentially foreclosing oil and gas development in those areas. Such restrictions are 

unduly burdensome and unnecessary, particularly because the BLM has not demonstrated or explained 

the need for such a radical shift from the current management practices in the Pinedale Resource Area.

Response: The oil and gas RFD takes into account any reduction in well numbers over the life of the plan 

that would be caused by VRM class or any other restrictions. The reduction in wells in the Preferred 

Alternative from the No Action alternative is 56 wells, which, compared to a total projected development 

under the Preferred Alternative of 7,136 wells, is not a radical shift from current management.

Comment: The BLM has not adequately analyzed the impacts VRM I and VRM II restrictions will have 

upon future oil and gas development. Because VRM I and II restrictions would essentially foreclose 

mineral development, see RMP DEIS, pg. 4-72, the BLM must analyze the socioeconomic effect such 

designations would have upon the planning area, and account for the loss of mineral production and 

revenues. Adoption of Alternative 3 or 4 would make development nearly impossible in 30 to 40% of the 

planning area. 

Response: The oil and gas RFD takes into account any reduction in well numbers over the life of the plan 

that would be caused by VRM class or any other restrictions. The reduction in wells in the Preferred 

Alternative from the No Action alternative is 56 wells, which, compared to a total projected development 

under the Preferred Alternative of 7,136 wells, is not a radical shift from current management.

Comment: The BLM should also revise the lands that will be subject to VRM II restrictions across the 

planning area. As the BLM admits on page 4-72, VRM I and II areas “would be largely unavailable for 

mineral development.” By imposing VRM I and II restrictions on approximately 30% of the resource 

area, the BLM is essentially foreclosing oil and gas development in those areas.

Response: The oil and gas RFD takes into account any reduction in well numbers over the life of the plan 

that would be caused by VRM class or any other restrictions. The reduction in wells in the Preferred 

A27-458 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Visual Resources 

Alternative from the No Action alternative is 56 wells, which, compared to a total projected development 

under the Preferred Alternative of 7,136 wells, is not a radical shift from current management.

Comment: PAGE: 4.72, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE and 

RECALCULATE to conform to manual: Under this alternative, VRM classifications (Map 2-30) would 

be more restrictive than under Alternatives 1 and 2 but less restrictive than under Alternative 3. 

Approximately [30%] (STRIKEOUT) of the planning area would be categorized as VRM Class I (21,290 

acres) and Class II [(256,320 acres)] (STRIKEOUT), and the other 70% would be categorized as VRM 

Class III (395,380 acres) and Class IV (249,940 acres). As discussed under Alternative 1, VRM Class II 

management requires a high degree of screening to ensure that manmade intrusions do not attract the 

attention of the casual observer. Where this level of screening cannot be achieved, the intrusion would 

potentially not be allowed, and, in the case of leasable minerals, the hydrocarbon resource would not be 

recovered. EXPLANATION: See Comment #56.

Response: The analysis provided is sufficient to address the impacts to minerals attributed to the 

management of visual resources. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-84, SECTION: 4.7.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE ACRES to 

CONFORM to CASE LAW Compared to Alternative 1, under this alternative VRM management would 

keep the same acreage in Class I (21,290 acres); [would increase the acreage in Class II by 249% (from 

73,430 acres to 256,320 acres) and in Class III by 53% (from 187,070 acres to 395,380 acres);] 

(STRIKEOUT) and would reduce Class IV acreage by 61% (from 641,140 acres to 249,940 acres). This 

would be more restrictive to locatable minerals activity than Alternative 1, because of the more stringent 

requirements to mitigate impacts on the visual setting under Classes II and III. EXPLANATION: See 

Comments Ch. 2 ## 28-30 (fails to properly apply VRM objectives).

Response: Please refer to responses to those Chapter 2 comments mentioned in this comment. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-126, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: VRM Class I objectives would apply to the 

Scab Creek WSA, and VRM Class II III objectives would apply to the remainder of the SRMA. 

EXPLANATION: VRM Class II objectives cannot be applied to existing leases and cannot be applied if 

inconsistent with other uses. See Comment #50. The Front Country portion already has roads, etc. and 

does not conform to VRM Class II.

Response: BLM adhered to appropriate procedures to inventory and recommend appropriate VRM 

objectives for broad area landscapes. There are no existing leases in the Scab Creek SRMA area.

Comment: PAGE:2-138 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE a. VRM classifications 

would be managed according to Map 2-30 (Table 2-29, p. 2-169): 21,290 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class I; [256,320](strikeout) acres as Class II; [395,380](strikeout) acres as Class III; and 

[249,940](strikeout) acres as VRM Class IV. EXPLANATION: Maps need to be revised to conform to 

underlying land uses. RMP does not provide enough information to show the existing land uses versus the 

inventory. For instance, BLM cannot impose Class II VRM on existing oil and gas leases where surface 

occupancy is allowed. SUWA v. BLM, 144 IBLA 70 (1998). 

Response: It is not prudent or technically feasible to display the level of detail evident in the visual 

resource inventory and allocation mapping process. The presence of oil and gas leases does not negate 

BLM’s responsibility to develop long-term VRM objectives.

Pinedale RMP A27-459 
Appendix 27—Visual Resources Final EIS 

Comment: Page 2-20 The integrity of the visual setting of national historic trails would be protected from 

surface disturbing activities by relocating or redesigning projects within 2 miles of either side of the trail 

to conform to a VRM Class II designation. 

BLM has not offered any justification for expanding protection of national historic trails from 1⁄4 mile to 2 

miles other than to explain (in Chapter 3) that the quarter mile did not preserve the scenic integrity of the 

trail as it was in the 19th century because structures were placed along the 1⁄4 mile line. Of course the 

original intent of the trail was not directed as preservation of scenic values. Rather it was the means used 

to open the West to development and other opportunities. Obviously, scenic integrity has nothing to do 

with views of folks from the 19th century but rather the views of certain folks today. Expanding the 

“buffer” along the trail is simply a tool to inhibit any type of development or commercial use and should 

be recognized as such. We question the implication that certain activities could be relocated. BLM has 

failed to explain how such a move could be done while honoring valid existing rights. In summary, we 

oppose the arbitrary extension of the existing buffer because it serves no tangible benefit to the trail or its 

protection. 

Page 2-114, (1)(f) Management Objective and Actions “The Lander Trail and its visual historic setting 

would be protected through establishment of a VRM Class II designation for about 84,380 acres of public 

land within 2 miles of contributing segments of the trail...” 

To protect all trails with the same status as a congressionally designated trail is excessive and 

unsupported. In concert with our comments on the Draft Rawlins and Casper RMP Revision, we support 

Class II protection of congressionally designated trails within the 2 miles only where the segments and 

settings are pristine and eligible for the NRHP. The Lander Trail is not a congressionally designated trail 

nor is it being considered for designation. In addition, the integrity of some portions of the trail setting 

has already been compromised and those areas do not warrant Class II protection. BLM must provide 

flexibility in management prescriptions as the integrity of some portions of the trail may be more 

appropriately managed under a VRM Class III or IV stipulation. Furthermore, the standard width of the 

trail should not exceed the 1⁄4 mile from the centerline of the trail or visual horizon, whichever is closer 

unless agreed to by all parties. A two-mile buffer is unwarranted as stated above. 

Response: Recognition that the one-quarter mile buffer did not provide adequate protection of the visual 

setting of the National Historic Trails is justification for expanding the visual buffer area. The importance 

of the National Historic Trails, and their visual setting, was established by Congress in the National Trails 

System Act of 1968. The argument that a site was not historic at the time European settlers first saw it, is 

not relevant to the historic importance and relevance of the visual setting of the trails to United States 

people today. 

As plainly stated in the action quoted, the VRM Class II designation applies to only contributing 

segments of the trails. It is plainly visible on Map 2-30 that the VRM Class II area does not extend fully 

across the planning area over the length of the trail. 

The Lander Trail is part of the Congressionally designated National Historic Trails System. The VRM 

Class II area for contributing segments of the trail has been expanded to 3 miles either side of the trail for 

continuity with other BLM planning areas in Wyoming (Casper) that manage National Historic Trails. 

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-62: “The 6-mile-wide VRM Class II designation (169,570 acres) for 

the Lander Trail would potentially affect well pad, production facility, road, and pipeline placement 

within this corridor, to meet the VRM Class II objectives....” Recommendations: The RMP should 

reference or incorporate the Lander Trail PA, which currently governs management of a segment of the 

Lander Trail. 

A27-460 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Visual Resources 

Response: Programmatic agreements (PA) for management of cultural resources, such as the Lander 

Trail PA and the Jonah PA, would continue to apply. The PAs are referenced in the management actions 

common to all alternatives in Chapter 2. 

Pinedale RMP A27-461 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

Watershed and Water Quality 

General Comment Responses: 

Comments: 

• Current methods of drilling cause water contamination. Contamination of surface water and 

contamination of ground water seem to be inevitable side effects. My understanding is that when 

toxic chemicals are detected in ground water the current ‘solution’ is to pump water out until a 

clean sample is tested. Does that mean all the benzene, toluene, and whatever else is removed? 

Probably not. Put this in perspective. The most valuable resource that comes out of Sublette 

County is not oil or gas. It is clean water... something our country may need to import from 

Canada someday. If we contaminate the aquifer below Sublette County, on the crest of the 

continent, it would be a drastic blow to the economic future of the southwestern states and to the 

entire nation. 

• Drilling has already destroyed the area just south of Pinedale with 1000’s of wells, that has had 

serious effects on water quality (wells are contaminated) 

• What about water quality and aquifer contamination? The drillers have made “mistakes” and have 

had some plumbing “accidents” in the Pinedale Anticline. We do not want the possibility of this 

in other areas of the Upper Green.

• The coverage of Water Quality (Surface and Groundwater) and Watershed Management appears 

inadequate. Discussions for the topic are cursory with too few maps, tables, figures or other 

documentation showing how watershed considerations informed your decisionmaking. For 

example, -- no quantification of dissolved solids, salts, hydrocarbons present in produced water. -

- inadequate quantification of produced water volumes. (Annual average from 1996 – 2006 is not 

a useful figure.) -- no map of precipitation zones for the watershed -- no table of snowpack 

averages for the watershed -- no map or acreage table of NWI wetlands in the resource area. -- no 

data showing acre feet of water the project area contributes to the Upper Colorado riversystem. 

• It fails to truly assess the amount of water which would be used and to assess the effects of that 

amount of water usage on the aquafers and streams/surface water sources that are potentially 

available. 

Response: The contamination of the water wells south of Pinedale was detected through the monitoring 

program put in place with the PAPA EIS and is being addressed through the auspices of the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ). Only a few of the wells within the PAPA and Jonah 

Field had levels of contamination greater than the WDEQ minimum contamination level (MCL), and 

these are being addressed under the WDEQ remediation program. An expanded study of aquifer 

connection and function that will help to predict vulnerability to future contamination events is presently 

underway. 

One of the ironies of studying groundwater is that it requires a well and the implied disturbance to the 

aquifer to even become aware of its existence. This is especially true for complex fluvial deposits such as 

are encountered in the PAPA and the Jonah field. These portions of the Earth’s crust were created by 

ancient river channels meandering over the land surface and have been frequently compared in 

complexity and structure to a large bowl of potato chips. In short, it is a very complex system. Beginning 

with the initial PAPA EIS, all wells within 1 mile of an active hydrocarbon well have been monitored for 

water quality. Each well is initially monitored for both hydrocarbons and mineral analysis. Each 

subsequent year, every well is then sampled for mineral content at a minimum and may be sampled for 

A27-462 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

hydrocarbon content as well. The hydrocarbon test selected for this monitoring was sensitive enough to 

detect levels sufficient to exceed WDEQ’s MCL. In other words, these tests were sufficient to determine 

if the water being tested met all legal requirements. Livestock and domestic wells in the area tend to use 

shallow aquifers. All industrial wells completed under the PAPA and Jonah documents are designed to 

isolate these waters to prevent any problems. The gas wells are at least two orders of magnitude deeper 

than water supply wells. Costs and operational procedures dictated that an individual well might not be 

sampled for hydrocarbons with every sampling event. A saline gradient (deeper waters and those aquifers 

associated with the hydrocarbon production zones are saltier than the more shallow aquifers associated 

with the water wells in question) allowed for monitoring of undesired well communication, which would 

trigger a more complete investigation. 

Unforeseen events, associated with human error, in early 2007 resulted in produced water being 

introduced into a limited number of wells. This was detected by the existing monitoring program and 

triggered a WDEQ investigation and a cleanup of the contaminated wells. As part of this investigation, a 

more sensitive test for hydrocarbons was used on all the water supply wells within the PAPA and the 

Jonah fields. This round of tests detected levels of hydrocarbons in sampled wells, some of which were 

below MCL. It is at this point that a great many questions developed: 

1. What is the source of the hydrocarbons: natural, introduced through the drilling procedure, or the 

result of communication between deep and shallow aquifers along the annulus of the well? 

2. Whose jurisdiction does this low level detection fall under? The hydrocarbon levels for the most part 

do not exceed MCL and are not violating WDEQ regulations. BLM monitors surface compliance, 

well construction, and product metering. The Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (WSEO) monitors 

well location and water use. The Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission (WOGC) monitors hydrocarbon 

production and well location. 

3. What is to be done about this detection of low levels of hydrocarbons? 

Wells that exceed MCL are placed in the WDEQ Voluntary Remediation Program. The majority of wells 

with hydrocarbon detections, however, were below MCL, meaning that their beneficial use was not 

degraded and the source is not known. To answer these and other questions, all parties involved (federal, 

state, and private) have started an investigation to determine the nature of the contamination and the 

aquifer complex. At this point, all available data are being gathered and analyzed to determine what data 

gaps exist and which ones need to be filled to answer the questions of both source and potential future 

actions. This process is presently underway and is not yet fully defined. It is hoped that it will yield 

results in time. If sound results are produced prior to the publication of the Pinedale RMP/Final EIS, 

appropriate data and guidelines will be incorporated either into the RMP or the appropriate subordinate 

documents. The need for an aquifer delineation study was presented early on in the process, but it was 

determined through the Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) that proper well drilling procedures 

and the monitoring of water wells within the production area would be sufficient. This appeared to be the 

case until the events and monitoring of early 2007. 

WDEQ has primacy in terms of waters within the State of Wyoming. BLM works in cooperation with 

WDEQ to maintain the health of the land and the water that flows off it. It is WDEQ, however, that has 

the final authority with regard to water. Groundwater monitoring and studies are underway but will not 

produce significant results for some time. A decision was made to proceed with the planning process and 

generate an RMP while the ground water studies were continuing. As a result, the RMP will not have all 

of the data that will eventually become available because it is being written and will need to incorporate 

data as it becomes available. Establishing and maintaining monitoring programs are associated primarily 

with individual projects, such as the PAPA and Jonah field developments. It is impractical and in some 

Pinedale RMP A27-463 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

cases illegal to halt development until a complete body of data has been gathered, analyzed, and 

incorporated into proposed actions. As a rule, monitoring plans are standalone documents that reference 

an EIS or Environmental Assessment (EA) that has been written for a specific project. The RMP is an 

overarching document that defines the general guidelines for future actions. The new RMP does not 

change the content of the previous EISs and EAs such as those for the Jonah field and PAPA or their 

associated monitoring plans. Appendices 3 and 5, as well as portions of Table A11-1, have been revised 

in the final EIS. 

Comments: 

• The RMP DEIS does not evaluate the impacts of ground water contamination associated with 

waste pits and reserve pits. For the PRA, such contamination is of increased concern because the 

ground water in the near-surface alluvium is used for domestic use and for livestock. More-over, 

some of the recharge in the region “passes through the alluvium into the Wasatch aquifer.” See 

PAPA Draft Supplemental EIS [8] at 3-72. The Final EIS (and any revised or supplemental draft) 

should present data on the potentially problematic materials found in pits, including concentrated 

drilling, completion and stimulation fluids, heavy metals, radioactive materials, and produced 

waters with high salinity or other contents that may contaminate ground waters. 

• The region around the Pinedale Anticline, where the Pinedale Thrust Fault has created an uplifted 

zone. The sediment layers and aquifers in this zone tend to slope down-ward from the central 

ridge of the anticline. Contaminated ground waters from the anticline will tend to move to lower 

potential away from the crest of the anticline. Along the south and west flanks of the anticline, the 

ground waters in the alluvium, the Wasatch aquifer and Fort Union aquifer likely flow to the 

south and west towards the New Fork and Green Rivers. On the northeast flanks of the anticline, 

however, the ground waters will likely migrate towards the nearby communities of Pinedale and 

Boulder. People drawing well water off the flanks of the anticline may contribute to this 

migration by, creating “sinks” (areas of lowered hydro-static potential). The recharge map 

attached as Figure 4 also shows the northwest portion of the Pinedale Anticline experiences 

greater annual recharge than other parts of the anticline. Higher recharge rates will mean higher 

ground water flow away from the recharge area. For these reasons, ground water contamination 

from natural gas wells in the PAPA field is likely to migrate towards these areas where people 

depend on clean well water for consumption and other domestic uses. The map of ground water 

wells provided in Figure 1 attached shows there are numerous domestic wells running parallel to 

the Pinedale Anticline along the north east flanks. Many are within a few miles of active natural 

gas drilling sites. 

• In the Draft Supplemental EIS for the Pinedale Anticline Project Area [8], BLM acknowledges 

drawdowns in the water table from drilling-related water extraction could be 10-30 feet up to 3 

miles from a concentration of activity. PAPA D-SEIS at 4-84. However, BLM assumed there 

would be “recharge through infiltration” so “[w]ater level recovery in the Wasatch [aquifer] 

should ... be rapid when pumping ceases in any area.” Id. It seems BLM is making the same 

assumption in the RMP DEIS. The recharge estimates provided in Figure 4 indicate recovery of 

drawn down aquifers would not be rapid but would take many decades.

Response: The ongoing groundwater study associated with PAPA and the Jonah field will help to answer 

these questions. At this time the data required for the analysis are not available. 

A27-464 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

Unique Comments: 

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes 

Comment: My concern is based on the fact that despite the hundreds of pages of text in this draft, there 

are little actual number of pages in the text devoted to watershed, water quality and quantity, and implied 

impacts on all aspects of resource success. Serious impacts are mentioned but the probable long term 

impacts of each are not evaluated as to overall impact on the functioning of the resource area. For a 

cursory view of this problem see the following sections: 

• Sec 1 cites relevant water statues governing water quality page 1-17, 

• Section 2.3.11 on watershed and water quality management is on pg 2-11, 

• Sec 4 environmental consequences on watershed and water quality (surface and groundwater) pg 

4-166 to 173 all mention the high correlation of surface disturbance due to oil and gas activities 

and potential watershed health and water quality issues. 

• 4.19.16 Watershed and water quality (4-252) degradation of water quality can be a rapid process 

while recovery in resources is much slower. As stated in a previous section 

• 4.19.14 impact on vegetation under alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would reduce ability of vegetation 

resources to support other resource values. In addition increases in noxious weeds also reduce the 

land and water quality to support resources. While water quality would be monitored by the state 

of Wyoming, it still seems the resulting effect is degradation of water quality and quantity on all 

resources. 

• 4.20 irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources (4-257) Surface disturbances would 

result in long-term or permanent alterations to soil, removal of vegetation cover, and 

fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Increased in sediment alkalinity and non-point source pollution 

that result from activities could result in degradation of water quality, and irretrievable loss of 

water utility, aquatic habitats, and aquatic-dependent species. Even with reclamation efforts on 

some disturbed sides may never return to pre-disturbance conditions. The result would likely 

result in permanent reductions in wildlife populations and impairment of water quality and 

vegetation communities in some areas. 

• 4.21 Unavoidable adverse impacts (4-258) include soil erosion and compaction, habitat 

degradation and fragmentation, and water quality impairments all of which affect vegetation and 

wildlife capacity of the landscape. 

These suppositions ought to be in large bold type for the public to see and addressed by relevant and 

smart professionals with evidence and supportable management plans as to how to avoid the impacts and 

still keep to the Mission Statement of BLM which “is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of 

the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.” 

Response: It would not be appropriate to emphasize watershed impacts over impacts to other resources. 

The impact analysis presents the predicted impacts that might be expected to occur if RMP decisions were 

implemented. All RMP decisions would be in accordance with BLM’s Mission Statement.

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-169: “Year-round drilling could affect watershed health and water 

quality, primarily through runoff during the times that soils are saturated.” Recommendations: Provide 

citation and provide support for conclusions.

Response: This conclusion is based on professional judgment and observations made in the field by BLM 

resource specialists.

Pinedale RMP A27-465 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

Comment: Chapter 2 Page 141 Commentor WGFD Objective 5 Action 3. The water met or exceeded 

DEQ standards for agricultural grouundwater AND will not change the chemical/physical composition of 

the water in that stream.

Response: This final EIS has been updated to reflect this.

Comment: • Watershed and water quality goals and objectives for surface and groundwater management 

need to include an inventory analysis of ground water and surface water relationships. Actions should 

include conducting comprehensive analysis on relationships, impacts, management of produced waters, 

treatment options, complications with reinjection, ephemeral drainage discharge issues, etc. Impacts to 

rangelands, sage grouse habitat and crucial winter ranges need to be addressed.

Response: A groundwater analysis is presently underway. Produced water issues are addressed in the 

document under the action items for each alternative.

Comment: The reason I have recited the foregoing NEPA requirements (42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), 40 

C.F.R. § 1502.16, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7, 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C)(v), 40 C.F.R. § 

1502.16, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1, at § 1502.24, § 1502.22, at § 1502.22(a), § 1502.22(b)(4), at §§ 1502.2(b), 

1508.13, Id. at § 1505.2(c), Id. at § 1502.2(a)) is that the RMP DEIS does not satisfy them. Chapter 4 of 

the RMP DEIS presents BLM’s discussions of potential impacts that could occur through implementation 

of each of the four DEIS alternatives studied in detail. The four pages 4-167 through 4-170 discuss water 

quality impacts common to all of the alternatives. The subsequent four pages discuss water-related 

impacts specific to each alternative. Throughout those 8 pages there is no actual analysis of impacts. 

Instead, the DEIS merely describes some of the anticipated activities that are expected to occur in the 

PRA and then presents generalized descriptions of impacts.

Response: The RMP is an overview document. Many factors outside the scope of the RMP document 

will affect the amount of actual activity that occurs on the ground. The RMP tries to provide direction for 

these activities but cannot predict the final total amount without setting specific upper and lower amounts 

of activity. As a result, the exact consequences of each alternative are difficult to predict. The impact 

analysis is appropriate for the scope of the draft EIS. Because the RMP will not authorize any on the 

ground activities, it is not possible to predict specific impacts of projects on the ground that have not yet 

been proposed.

Comment: RMP DEIS at 4-171 and 4-172. This discussion - of impacts from the alternative which poses 

the greatest overall impacts to water quality - amounts to about one full page in the DEIS ... twenty five 

unsupported, conclusory sentences. The discussions for the impacts expected from the other alternatives 

use essentially identical language, and each also consists of about one page of discussion. This is not 

analysis. 

Response: The RMP is an overview document. Many factors outside the scope of the RMP document 

will affect the amount of actual activity that occurs on the ground. The RMP tries to provide direction for 

these activities but cannot predict the final total amount without setting specific upper and lower amounts 

of activity. As a result, the exact consequences of each alternative are difficult to predict. The impact 

analysis is appropriate for the scope of the draft EIS. Because the RMP will not authorize any on-theground activities, it is not possible to predict specific impacts of projects on the ground that have not yet 

been proposed.

Comment: PAGE: G-24 CHANGE: WATER TABLE - The plane[r](STRIKEOUT) surface between 

EXPLANATION: Typographical error

A27-466 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

Response: This change has been made in the final EIS. 

Comment: PAGE: G-18 CHANGE: PRODUCED WATER – Groundwater produced in conjunction with 

[removed to facilitate the extraction of minerals such as](STRIKEOUT) coal, oil, or gas production. 

EXPLANATION: Definition should be revised to conform to Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7, Disposal 

of Produced Water, 58 Fed. Reg. 58506 (1993).

Response: This change has been made in the final EIS. 

Comment: NEPA requires disclosure of “any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources” 

which would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(v) and 40 

C.F.R. § 1502.16. There are numerous irreversible and irretrievable commitments associated with ground 

and surface water resources in the PRA. These include: 

• contamination of ground water from drilling, completion and stimulation fluids, from injection 

and spills of produced waters, from hazardous material spills and from other mechanisms I 

discussed previously (ground water contamination is often impossible to remediate) 

• ground water depletions and lowering of the ground water table (recharge rates are so low that the 

ground water may remain drawn down for more than a human lifetime) 

• loss of aquifer pore space (and, hence, reduction in aquifer carrying capacity) due to imbalanced 

hydrostatic pressure from withdrawal of ground waters 

• loss of near-surface aquifer pore space volume from construction of compacted roads and well 

pads, and loss of ground water infiltration (recharge) area from roads, well pads and pits buried 

on-site 

• fracturing or perforating rocks in ways that allow aquifers to communicate, so that low quality 

ground waters may degrade higher quality ground waters 

• oil and gas production contributions to global warming and resulting loss of glaciers in regional 

mountains (ultimately leading to reduced water supply for local residents) 

• soil erosion from roads, well pads, pipelines, ORV use and other activities 

• reduction in endangered species population sizes from water depletions and associated irreparable 

losses in genetic diversity 

Although a Resource Management Plan does not, by itself, cause irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments, it does. allocate lands for various uses that effectively lead to such commitments. For 

example, which lands the RMP leaves open to mineral leasing, ORV use or water withdrawals often 

determines the fate of those lands. The RMP Final EIS (and any revised or supplemental draft) should 

therefore evaluate and disclose any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, including 

those listed above.

Response: Water quality regulation is the authority of WDEQ. The RMP will not authorize any on-theground activities. Direct impacts of permitted actions on groundwater resources will be evaluated at the 

project-specific level.

Comment: The BLM action for which the Draft EIS was prepared is development of a new Resource 

Management Plan for the entire Pinedale Resource Area. This new Plan will establish management 

direction for all natural resources throughout the PRA. According to the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the RMP management direction must “protect the quality” of 

ecological, environmental and water resources from various possible uses and activities that may occur 

under the RMP. See, e.g., 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8). In addition, the RMP management direction must also 

meet the mandate of “multiple use” which is defined to mean “a combination of balanced and diverse 

resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations” for resources, including 

Pinedale RMP A27-467 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

water, and the “harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent 

impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment....” 43 U.S.C. §§ 1702(c), 

1712(c)(1). The RMP must also “give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical 

environmental concern,” 43 U.S.C. § 1711(a), and “provide for compliance with applicable pollution 

control laws, including State and Federal ... water ... pollution standards or implementation plans.” 43 

U.S.C. § 1712(c)(8). After carefully reviewing the RMP DEIS, it is my conclusion that the proposed 

direction for the BLM’s proposed management direction for the new RMP - embodied in Alternative 4 

does not meet these requirements. The same is true of the other alternatives evaluated in. the DEIS.. This 

is largely because the direction proposed for those alternatives (i) will not protect water resources from 

contamination or depletions, (ii) will not ensure the ground water resources meet. the needs of future 

generations, (iii.) will not comply with applicable pollution control laws, and (iv) does not recognize and 

protect areas of critical environmental concern for important ground and surface waters.

Response: The RMP will not authorize any on-the-ground activities. Direct impacts of permitted actions 

on groundwater resources will be evaluated at the project-specific level.

Comment: The RMP DEIS presents management direction “common to all alternatives” for protecting 

watersheds and water quality (ground and surface waters). This “common” management direction reads, 

in its entirety: “All actions would comply with EO [Executive Order] 11988, Floodplain Management, 

and EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and the State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ) water quality standards. Consistent with WDEQ and EPA requirements, Hazardous Spill 

Response Plans would be required for all projects involving hazardous materials.” 

RMP DEIS at 3-11. This is not management direction. These two sentences are nothing more than 

recitations of BLM’s intentions to comply with a few applicable legal requirements. In fact, because these 

requirements exist independently of the RMP, stating them in the RMP is redundant. What is needed is 

direction that would help BLM officers comply with these and other water-related requirements, along 

with additional direction to protect water resources from harms that are not currently covered by statutes 

or executive orders. And there is no such direction. Requiring “hazardous spill response plans” is not the 

same as providing direction that would actually eliminate or reduce the risk of spills. Nor would such 

plans protect vulnerable waters from such spills. Instead, the proposed RMP direction merely instructs 

BLM officials to require further planning. Likewise, telling BLM officers to comply with State Water 

Quality standards does nothing to guide those officers in meeting the standards. If the RMP is not going 

to provide direction on how to comply with the various legal requirements, what is the point in even 

producing such a Plan?

Response: The statement will remain as is. The reference is not redundant.

Comment: Alternative 4, Management Goals: RMP DEIS at 2-139. Although goals are precatory 

language and are not enforceable, they can guide actions. This set of goals is a good starting point. 

However, the first goal should not be to “minimize” adverse impacts on water quality, it should be to 

prevent adverse impacts to water quality. A goal declares intent. If the BLM’s goal is only to “minimize” 

adverse impacts on waters, this suggests BLM is intending to degrade water quality. Moreover, because 

the word “minimize” is ambiguous, it would allow activities to cause significant water quality 

degradation without violating the intent of the goal, as written. For the same reasons, the word 

“minimize” should be deleted from the subsequent goals as well. The references to “federal lands” should 

be broadened to include operations conducted under federal minerals leases on non-federal surface lands. 

In addition, I am asking BLM to add the following additional goals to the new RMP and all alternatives 

evaluated in the EIS: 

A27-468 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

• To address the needs of downstream water users - and to help recover endangered aquatic species 

and the ecosystems upon which they depend - increase water flows in the Colorado River Basin 

and Columbia River Basin where it is practicable to do so without causing other environmental 

degradation. 

• Conserve water (i.e., prevent water waste including evaporative and seepage losses) to the extent 

practicable through BLM authorized activities, and encourage and help other water users to 

conserve water. 

• Maintain stream channel function and health, and where possible restore previously de-graded 

stream channels to healthy functioning condition. 

• Provide sufficient in-stream flows to maintain healthy aquatic habitats - including adequate peak 

flows, following historic natural timing of peak flows - to provide (as applicable) favorable water 

temperatures, spawning gravels free of siltation, formation of sand and gravel bar habitats, and 

formation of back waters. 

• Prevent ground water contamination and losses in ground water carrying capacity (e.g., 

reductions in porosity from compaction or chemical alteration). 

• Maintain the integrity of aquifers, natural aquifer seals, and recharge areas (e.g., from hydraulic 

fracturing, deep injection, oil and gas wells, etc.). 

• Prevent adverse changes to surface waters - in the Resource Area and outside of it - from 

deposition of air pollutants emitted from operations conducted under federal minerals leases (on 

federal or non-federal surface lands).

Response: BLM has presented an analysis of impacts that could reasonably occur if certain broad 

categories of land use activities were carried out. With the soil types present in the planning area, 

elimination of water quality impacts would necessitate elimination of all soil-disturbing activities. BLM 

does not have the authority to prohibit development of existing valid oil and gas leases. It is reasonable to 

have a goal of minimizing the impacts of activities that can reasonably be expected to occur. Minimizing 

impacts is an accurate and achievable goal where preventing impacts would be unachievable. Water is the 

purview of the state. The goal of achieving and maintaining proper functioning condition and Wyoming 

Rangeland Standards as a minimum addresses the other concerns in this row of the table.

Comment: Please develop a full set of management direction that is needed to provide the basic essential 

protections for watersheds and water resources from all conceivable harms. This direction should be 

incorporated into every alternative RMP and, before being finalized, should be circulated for public 

review and comment.

Response: This is out of the scope of BLM’s responsibility and of the RMP.

Comment: Compounding the convoluted presentation of alternative management direction, the DEIS 

fails to explain why there were such drastic changes in the water-related direction between the alternatives. For example, Alternatives 3 and 4 include the following management goal: “Prevent, minimize, 

and/or remediate elevated levels of salinity contribution from federal lands to the Colorado River system. 

DEIS at 2-96 and 2-139. In. contrast, Alternative 2 does not have this goal. Why not? Similarly, 

Alternative 3 contains direction requiring that “100-year flood plains wetlands, and riparian areas would 

be closed to new permanent facilities (for example, storage tanks, structures, and pits) except those 

designed and implemented to enhance wetland or riparian area condition or function.” DEIS at 2-97. Yet 

Alternative 2 does not contain this direction. Again, why not? Agencies are required to explain the basis 

for their actions; they cannot simply outline seemingly arbitrary sets of management direction and leave it 

to the public to try to guess the underlying reasons. See, e.g., Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) 

(holding that “an agency must cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given manner” and 

Pinedale RMP A27-469 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

offer a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made”). There is no evidence or 

explanation offered for the BLM’s selection of management direction for the various alternatives.

Response: The alternatives were designed to create a full range of reasonable actions. From this range, 

the final direction will be chosen.

Comment: Likewise, there is no discussion or explanation for why certain management direction from 

the 1988 RMP - which BLM believed to be the minimum acceptable protection at the time - is not carried 

over to the new proposed RMP in the same or strengthened form. For example, in certain sensitive areas 

the 1988 RMP specifies that “[s]urface disturbance will not be allowed within 1,000 feet of streams and 

on slopes of 25 percent or greater....” This provision is not included in the new proposed RMP 

(Alternative 4). Why not? What were the reasons BLM adopted this measure in the first place? And why 

does the agency now believe this direction is no longer needed? When an agency decides to eliminate 

previous standards, the agency is required to explain the reasons for the action. See, e.g., Motor Vehicle 

Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., op. cit. (Justices Rehnquist, Powell and O’Connor 

concurring that an agency must explain why it declined to leave previous requirements intact). The DEIS 

does not comply with this requirement. Without explanations for the changes in management direction 

between alternatives, it appears the BLM has acted in an arbitrary and capricious way. 

To correct these problems, I am requesting that BLM provide explanations for each proposed 

management goal, objective, standard or guideline. This should include citations to peer-reviewed 

literature that supports the need for the management direction. If no such literature exists, BLM should 

explain why it feels the management direction is needed and also explain how the proposed management 

direction will actually avoid or reduce impacts. And BLM should explain whether the proposed direction 

represents “all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm ... and if not, why ... not.” 40 

C.F.R. § 1505.2(c).

Response: The restriction of activities within 1,000 feet of streams and on slopes greater than 25% was 

specific to the Beaver Creek ACEC (1988 RMP ROD page 53). The restriction is included in Alternative 

4 for that area and has been expanded to include a restriction on clearcutting. The Preferred Alternative 

was developed after evaluating the impacts of continuing the current management and after analysis of 

Alternatives 2 and 3. The rationale for the management direction presented in the Preferred Alternative is 

contained in the impact analysis of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 

Comment: First, the “intents” and “outcomes” are either not specified in the DEIS or are so generalized 

that they could allow significant environmental harm - including water quality degradation - without 

violating the performance-based direction. For example, the proposed management direction for 

Alternative 2 incorporates the following primary management goal for Watershed and Water Quality 

Management: “Minimize adverse impacts to surface and ground water re-sources and recharge areas from 

public land uses.” DEIS at 2-67. What does “minimize” mean? It does not mean prevent or avoid. It does 

not mean pollutant concentrations would be limited to X mg/l in ground waters or Y mg/l in surface 

waters. “Minimize” is an ambiguous term that is neither measurable nor enforceable. Under the 

“minimize adverse impacts” performance-based direction the BLM could authorize activities that would 

significantly impact water resources so long as the agency claims it has done what it could to “minimize” 

those impacts. The RMP must contain measurable standards, not just feel-good goals and intentions.

Response: Water quality is the purview of the state. Because of the varied nature of the environment and 

the potential actions, it is impractical to provide exact levels of erosion or sedimentation to trigger actions. 

Much of the potential erosion would occur when no one would be present to observe and measure. Even 

then the damage would have already occurred. Disturbing the soil surface increases the potential for 

A27-470 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

erosion above natural background levels. Development of the hydrocarbon resource disturbs the soil. 

Therefore, taking preventive actions to minimize erosion prior to its occurrence is a practical step. 

Comment: Second, to demonstrate a particular RMP goal is achieved, the performance-based approach 

will require the BLM to “show that the outcome is achieved.” DEIS, Appendix A at A3-1. Thus, relying 

on “intents” and “outcomes” to prove compliance would require the BLM to conduct extensive 

monitoring - on every resource in the PRA that may be impacted and some resources outside the PRA28 - 

to prove the intent and outcomes are being achieved. When sufficient monitoring is not done, the BLM 

would assume intents and objectives are being met, even though they may not be. As noted above, BLM 

has not been meeting its monitoring obligations under the 1988 RMP [52, 53]. A significantly greater 

amount of monitoring would be needed to ensure performance-based management is working. Since the 

BLM has shown it is not going to conduct adequate monitoring under the prescriptive-based approach, 

there is no reason to expect the agency would meet the greater monitoring responsibilities that come with 

the performance-based approach.

Response: The final EIS has been revised to include performance-based management at the project 

planning level, where specific mitigations and guidelines can be developed, rather than at the RMP level. 

Appendix 3 has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: Third, under the performance-based approach, even if the BLM were to find that a particular 

“intent” or “outcome” is not being met, this will not necessarily allow BLM to identify the cause of the 

undesired impact to the environment or correct the problem. For instance, with thousands of gas wells 

being authorized in the PAPA and Jonah fields, if BLM were to find that near-surface water quality is 

being contaminated in these fields, there may be no way for the agency to identify the source(s) of the 

problem, and it would be too late to pre-vent the problem. The recent discovery of benzene in nearsurface ground waters in the Jonah and PAPA fields [25] provides a good example of this shortcoming in 

the performance-based approach. Because the 1988 RMP did not establish clear prescriptive direction that 

would protect ground waters from contamination during oil and gas development (e.g., drilling flu-ids 

may not contain benzene), BLM has followed an implicit performance-based approach to managing 

ground waters. Basically, BLM assumed that so long as the objective of having uncontaminated ground 

water was met, there was no problem and the existing management direction was adequate. After benzene 

was found in the ground waters, it became clear BLM had not done sufficient monitoring to determine the 

source of the contaminant. In addition, since the benzene has now contaminated the ground water, even if 

BLM could identify the source(s) of the contamination, it is too , late to prevent the contamination 

through adjustment of the RMP direction or project stipulations. The RMP direction should be designed 

to prevent impacts - to actually ensure intents and outcomes will be achieved - rather than simply 

identifying situations when desired intents or outcomes are not being met, after the fact.

Response: Water is the purview of the state. The recent discovery of the contaminated wells is an 

example of the monitoring system working.

Comment: Alternative 4, Objective 1: DEIS at 2-139. This Objective is laudable, but it does not actually 

require BLM to take action to prevent water quality degradation. As with goals, an objective is precatory 

and unenforceable. In addition, because the DEQ water quality standards are fairly permissive, meeting 

the “numerical standards” is a rather weak objective when waters already have quality much higher than 

the minimum standards. The DEIS does not even describe what the “uses and numerical standards” are. 

The EIS should describe these standards. I also suggest rewording Objective 1 to differentiate between 

waters that are already above the minimum DEQ the standards and those that are not. For waters that 

exceed the standards, the objective should be to maintain or improve the existing quality (to the extent 

consistent with maintaining aquatic ecosystems); for waters that do not currently meet the minimum 

Pinedale RMP A27-471 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

standards, the objective should be to improve the existing quality to meet the standards and return the 

water to historic natural condition.

Response: Water is the purview of the state. State regulations and standards are included by reference 

rather than being incorporated directly in the text.

Comment: 2-139, Alternative 4, Obj 3 & Actions: Beyond being discretionary and unenforceable, the 

loose language of this Objective renders it meaningless: the DEIS does not explain what constitutes 

“control” of water runoff or what constitutes “appropriate rates” of soil erosion. In addition, neither this 

Objective nor any of the underlying Actions would be binding on the BLM. Action (a) cites BMPs that 

are not included in the DEIS and are never shown to be effective at would not impact wetlands, riparian 

areas or floodplains. Action (c) suffers from the same problem by also allowing crossings on a case-bycase basis. Action (d) again allows impacts to wetlands and riparian areas on a case-by-case basis with no 

direction to disallow such impacts where alternatives exist that would avoid these sensitive areas. Action 

(e) - which states that “Interim reclamation standards would be developed ... on a project or site-specific 

basis” - offers no direction for what these reclamation standards would have to achieve. Why are there no 

reclamation standards included in the proposed RMP and other DEIS alternatives? Action (f) cites BMPs 

that are not described in the DEIS and are never shown to be effective at controlling threats to Class 1 

waters. In addition, Action (f) would only require these BMPs to be used on “contributing federal lands” 

even though BLM has a responsibility to protect Class 1 waters from threats caused by federal leases on 

non-federal surfaces. Action (g) also cites BMPs that are not included in the DEIS and are never shown to 

be effective at controlling salinity. Moreover, this Action is limited to addressing salt contributions only 

from “highly erodible, saline soils.” There are many other sources of salinity contributions to surface 

waters in the PRA, yet there is no direction presented to protect waters from these sources. And this 

“Action” will not ensure compliance with the “no salt return” policy of the Colorado River Salinity 

Control Program / Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

Response: WDEQ regulations cover several aspects in question including stormwater discharge plans and 

salinity concerns. Appendix 5, Fluid Mineral Best Management Practices, has been updated in the final 

EIS. Actions c, d, and e include standard language, which BLM believes is appropriate for the RMP. 

What constitutes reclamation success varies depending on the surrounding vegetation and landform. 

Specific goals are best set on a site-specific basis. 

The development of the energy resource requires pipelines and other facilities to cross water bodies. To 

eliminate temporary facilities roads and pipelines within the 100-year floodplain would prevent any 

transport of materials. The case-by-case procedure looks at alternate routes. What constitutes reclamation 

success varies depending on the surrounding vegetation and landform. Specific goals are best set on a 

site-specific basis. State regulations would address actions on both federal and nonfederal lands, but BLM 

cannot regulate nonfederal lands.

Comment: A11-2, Table 3. Furthermore, I do not believe the appropriate “action trigger” for ground and 

surface water quality changes should be “does not meet DEQ standards.” If a noticeable water quality 

decline is observed, this alone should trigger BLM action to correct the problem - even if the decline has 

not yet taken water quality below the DEQ minimum standards for that particular ground or surface 

water. Violation of water quality standards should trigger complete cessation of all activities that may be 

contributing to the violation as well as trigger prompt remediation efforts. The BLM should take action to 

correct problems - such as identifying the source(s) of observed degradation and preventing further 

discharge of pollutants - before such drastic measures. are needed. As an example, if near-surface ground 

waters with Class I (domestic use) quality are found to be experiencing increased TDS over time, 

produced waters discharged to the surface may be causing the problem. Instead of allowing the Class I 

water to continue being degraded to lesser Class II quality that would not be suitable for human use, as 

A27-472 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

the proposed RMP direction would allow - and then taking action to remediate the ground water back to 

Class I condition - the BLM could simply halt activities contributing to the decline (e.g., surface 

discharge of produced waters for dust suppression, vegetation reclamation, etc.).

Response: Table A11-1 has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: NSO stipulations will not protect all ground water resources in the PRA. To address other 

threats, I am asking BLM to adopt the following management directives for the new RMP: 

• The RMP should. require BLM to work with the local governments, the DEQ, the State 

Engineer’s Office, and applicable Conservation Districts to promptly develop a watershed 

protection plan - including ground water, wellhead, recharge area, and surface water protections - 

for the entire PRA. In addition to the issues discussed previously and below, this plan should 

prohibit or limit transport of hazardous materials near important surface waters, over sensitive 

ground water aquifers, and in important recharge areas. It should also seek ways to gradually shift 

to lotox (low-toxicity fuels, oils, etc.) motorized vehicles (e.g., boats and snowmobiles) on 

Fremont, Boulder and Willow Lakes. The plan should also be subject to expert agency review 

(e.g., by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers) and public comment. The RMP should require 

this plan to be implemented within two years of RMP issuance.

Response: BLM does not have regulatory authority in these areas and cannot mandate action on the part 

of the agencies that enforce the regulations.

Comment: For perspective, 10,000 additional residents each using an average of 400 gallons per day 

would collectively consume around 4,500 acre-feet of water a year. Some of this water would be treated 

and returned to surface waters (e.g., Pine Creek), but a significant amount will be lost to evaporation, such 

as through watering lawns. and washing vehicles. In fact, lawn watering and car washing are two of the 

most extensive water uses in the region. Even sewage treatment results in evaporative losses in settling 

ponds. Although the BLM is not directly using this water, the agency is directly responsible for creating 

the jobs that ultimately cause these water depletions. The RMP DEIS does not assess the direct, indirect, 

or cumulative surface water depletion associated with BLM-authorized natural gas and oil development in 

the PRA. 

Response: A brief discussion of this issue has been added to the cumulative impact analysis. 

Off-highway Vehicles (OHV) 

Comment: PAGE: 4-169, SECTION: 4.15.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Compaction of 

soils, channelization of overland flows, and loss of vegetation from OHV activity and from unmaintained 

or minimal maintained roads would increase erosion, reduce revegetation rates, and decrease stream bank 

stability, thereby causing increased sedimentation and salt and nutrient loading of streams. OHV or road 

use during periods of high soil moisture, such as early winter and spring, would accelerate erosion and 

vegetation damage. EXPLANATION: Presentation of impacts is biased.

Response: The impacts listed as associated with OHV use are appropriate.

Comment: PAGE: 4-174, SECTION: 4.15.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Designation of 

3,110 acres as open to OHV use would create areas of concentrated impacts on vegetative and soil 

resources. This, in turn, would create local impacts on surface water resources. [If properly managed, the 

presence of OHV Open areas could help control impacts over the larger planning area if it reduces 

recreational OHV activity outside of the designated areas.] (STRIKEOUT) Water resources within the 

OHV Open areas would need to be intensively managed and mitigated. EXPLANATION: Limited benefit 

Pinedale RMP A27-473 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

for water quality. OHV areas are not necessarily near water bodies. Statement unsupported by facts: high 

demand for OHV use and 3110 acres of open will not meet that.

Response: BLM finds the analysis is appropriate.

Comment: PAGE: 4-166, SECTION: 4.15.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE; DELETE [As populations 

expand in the area, disturbances created by OHVs will most likely continue to expand.] (STRIKEOUT) 

EXPLANATION: No basis for this statement. RMP removes 244,000 acres of land from OHV recreation 

use and limited OHV to 124,980 acres (DEIs 4-160)..

Response: Based on past experience and observation, it is reasonable to assume that OHV use will 

increase with an increasing local population.

Oil and Gas, Produced Water 

Comment: State specifically and with full disclosure how much water will be used for 4000 wells... it’s 

source, clearly defined reclamation or disposal, monitoring and enforcement! Or SLOW DOWN! Water 

is needed by everyone, everywhere. Wait until you can meet your responsibility to be accountable.

Response: Because of variances in site geology, potential for loss of water or drilling fluids down the 

hole, and potential for re-use of fluids between wells, it is not possible to accurately estimate the amount 

of water that would be used for all oil and gas drilling in the planning area. It is not possible to design 

specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not directly authorize any on-the-ground 

activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and the methods to be used, must be tied 

to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted.

Comment: I’d like to list three major areas in which you are failing. 2. When these companies drill wells 

on our public land they put all kinds of nasty caustic and corrosive chemicals down the drill holes. Who is 

making sure these chemicals don’t contaminate our aquifers? I’ll tell you who........no one. The BLM 

doesn’t even know what they are putting down there let alone WHERE it is going. By the way the cattle 

aren’t dying from drinking produced water, they are drinking out of drill pits where these chemicals end 

up. And this is also related to how much water these companies are sucking out of our aquifers at an 

insane rate. You are not “land managers” you are “gas company appeasers”.

Response: The constituents of drilling fluids are known and regulated. The shallow aquifers within the 

PAPA are cemented off to prevent contamination.

Comment: Some of the information presented is conflicting, confusing or misleading. For example, 

Objective 1, Management Action 3 for both Alternative 3 (2.5.4) and 4 (2.5.5) states that the discharge of 

produced water into stream channels would be “avoided”, but “if allowed” would comply with WDEQ 

standards. But the Impacts section for the same alternatives (4.15.6 and 4.15.7) offers the statement “No 

produced waters would be discharged into surface drainages”. And here is one of the Assumptions 

(4.15.1) used as a basis for analysis: “As mineral development continues to expand, there will be an 

increase in produced water volumes that will decrease as the rate of development decreases and the 

aquifers are drained.” It is not at all clear what you mean by this. 

The draft EIS indicates that BLM did not perform a rigorous analysis of water issues. This lack of 

attention probably led to your decision to allow oil and gas leasing on the Upper Green. Exposing 

theGreen River headwaters to such development would degrade this primary water resource which is so 

important in the American West. The declining supply of non-polluted fresh water for human populations 

is a looming crisis which is likely to eclipse even our increasing need for energy resources. Because NSO 

A27-474 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

offers no real protection, because management practices can be negotiated, because the BLM has shown 

inability to keep up with compliance monitoring, and mostly because water is a resource more vital than 

any other, please make unavailable for leasing all lands north of Tier 33 North in the Pinedale Resource 

Area.

Response: The statement about the disconnect between Chapters 2 and 4 is accurate and has been 

corrected. 

Comment: I consider the EIS to be inadequate in its assessment of the increased drilling which will be 

permitted in the Pinedale area in the following categories: It fails to truly assess the amount of water 

which would be used and to assess the effects of that amount of water usage on the aquafers and 

streams/surface water sources that are potentially available.

Response: The RMP will not permit any on-the-ground activities. It estimates impacts that could occur if 

allocated land uses in the RMP are carried out in the future. One of the ironies of studying groundwater is 

that it requires a well and the implied disturbance to the aquifer to even become aware of its existence. 

This is especially true for complex fluvial deposits such as are encountered in the PAPA and the Jonah 

field. These portions of the Earth’s crust were created by ancient river channels meandering over the land 

surface and have been frequently compared in complexity and structure to a large bowl of potato chips. In 

short, it is a very complex system. Beginning with the initial PAPA EIS, all wells within 1 mile of an 

active hydrocarbon well have been monitored for water quality. Each well is initially monitored for both 

hydrocarbons and mineral analysis. Each subsequent year, every well is then sampled for mineral content 

at a minimum and may be sampled for hydrocarbon content as well. The hydrocarbon test selected for this 

monitoring was sensitive enough to detect levels sufficient to exceed WDEQ MCLs. In other words, these 

tests were sufficient to determine if the water being tested met all legal requirements. Livestock and 

domestic wells in the area tend to use shallow aquifers. All industrial wells completed under the PAPA 

and Jonah documents are designed to isolate these waters to prevent any problems. The gas wells are at 

least two orders of magnitude deeper than water supply wells. Costs and operational procedures dictated 

that an individual well might not be sampled for hydrocarbons with every sampling event. A saline 

gradient (deeper waters and those aquifers associated with the hydrocarbon production zones are saltier 

than the more shallow aquifers associated with the water wells in question) allowed for monitoring of 

undesired well communication, which would trigger a more complete investigation. 

Unforeseen events, associated with human error, in early 2007 resulted in produced water being 

introduced into a limited number of wells. This was detected by the existing monitoring program and 

triggered a WDEQ investigation and a cleanup of the contaminated wells. As part of this investigation a 

more sensitive test for hydrocarbons was used on all the water supply wells within the PAPA and the 

Jonah fields. This round of tests detected levels of hydrocarbons in sampled wells, some of which were 

below MCL. It is at this point that a great many questions developed: 

1. What is the source of the hydrocarbons: natural, introduced through the drilling procedure, or the 

result of communication between deep and shallow aquifers along the annulus of the well? 

2. Whose jurisdiction does this low level detection fall under? The hydrocarbon levels for the most 

part do not exceed MCL and are not violating WDEQ regulations. BLM monitors surface 

compliance, well construction, and product metering. WSEO monitors well location and water 

use. WOGC monitors hydrocarbon production and well location. 

3. What is to be done about this detection of low levels of hydrocarbons? 

Wells that exceed MCL are placed in the WDEQ Voluntary Remediation Program. The majority of wells 

with hydrocarbon detections, however, were below MCL, meaning that their beneficial use was not 

Pinedale RMP A27-475 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

degraded and the source is not known. To answer these and other questions, all parties involved (federal, 

state, and private) have started an investigation to determine the nature of the contamination and the 

aquifer complex. At this point, all available data are being gathered and analyzed to determine what data 

gaps exist and which ones need to be filled to answer the questions of both source and potential future 

actions. This process is presently underway and is not yet fully defined. It is hoped that it will yield 

results in time. If sound results are produced prior to the publication of the Pinedale RMP/final EIS, 

appropriate data and guidelines will be incorporated either into the RMP or the appropriate subordinate 

documents. The need for an aquifer delineation study was presented early on in the process, but it was 

determined through the PAWG that proper well drilling procedures and the monitoring of water wells 

within the production area would be sufficient. This appeared to be the case until the events and 

monitoring of early 2007. 

WDEQ has primacy in terms of waters within the State of Wyoming. BLM works in cooperation with 

WDEQ to maintain the health of the land and the water that flows off it. It is WDEQ, however, that has 

the final authority with regard to water. Groundwater monitoring and studies are underway but will not 

produce significant results for some time. A decision was made to proceed with the planning process and 

generate an RMP while the ground water studies were continuing.. As a result, the RMP will not have all 

of the data that will eventually become available because it is being written and will need to incorporate 

data as it becomes available. Establishing and maintaining monitoring programs are associated primarily 

with individual projects, such as the PAPA and Jonah field developments. It is impractical and in some 

cases illegal to halt development until a complete body of data has been gathered, analyzed, and 

incorporated into proposed actions. As a rule, monitoring plans are standalone documents that reference 

an EIS or EA that has been written for a specific project. The RMP is an overarching document that 

defines the general guidelines for future actions. The new RMP does not change the content of the 

previous EISs and EAs such as those for the Jonah field and PAPA or their associated monitoring plans. 

Appendices 3 and 5 as well as portions of Table A11-1 havebeen revised in the final RMP/EIS. 

Comment: The BLM states in the RMP DEIS that operators would be encouraged to treat produced 

water in order to “enable its beneficial use.” See RMP DEIS, pg. 2-140. The BLM should not utilize the 

phrase “beneficial use” because it has legal significance in the context of water law in Wyoming. The 

Wyoming State Engineer has determined that energy production is a beneficial use of water. Further, the 

BLM should be aware that parties attempting to utilize water produced from oil and gas operations are 

required to obtain the approval of the oil and gas operator and obtain a permit from the Wyoming State 

Engineer. See State Engineer Rules Chapter I, Section 19; Chapter II, Section 6. The BLM cannot 

regulate the use of water in Wyoming.

Response: The term beneficial use has been changed in the final EIS.

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-64: “Water quality and watershed management actions would 

prescribe that no new permanent facilities would be allowed in flood plains, perennial or intermittent 

watercourses, or in wetland/riparian areas, which would lead to the relocation of oil and gas facilities 

outside these areas (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). The buffer zones protecting wetland/riparian area and flood 

plains would be expanded to one-quarter mile. This would result in an approximate 260% increase in the 

acreage affected by the restriction. Oil and gas reserves underlying areas beyond the viable reach of 

offsite development methods would be unrecoverable.” Recommendations: Map is too general to review 

this section. BLM should provide a more detailed map and allow additional time for analysis by the 

public. Quantify the amount of oil and gas reserves that would be unrecoverable and provide justification 

for the 260% increase on acreage affected by the restriction.

Response: It is reasonable to establish limitations on development to protect surface resources. An 

avoidance area of 1⁄4 mile is generally reachable with directional drilling techniques.

A27-476 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

Comment: Oil and gas development and maintenance operations utilize many toxic or hazardous 

chemicals that must be carefully controlled and regulated to prevent environmental and public health 

impacts. The RMP DEIS fails to analyze these impacts.

Response: BLM agrees that these substances need to be controlled to prevent impacts. The draft EIS cites 

The Clean Water Act of 1987, The Safe Drinking Water Act, Wyoming water quality standards and 

regulations, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

of 1986 as authorities that apply to the selection and implementation of management actions in the RMP. 

Appendix 25, Hazard Management and Resource Restoration Program, explains the management of 

hazards on public lands. As stated in Appendix 25: “Detailed management actions specific to hazardous 

materials usage are included as part of environmental analysis conducted for specific oil and gas field 

activities.” In addition, an analysis of hazardous materials management is prepared as part of the 

application for permit to drill process.

Comment: The RMP DEIS fails to adequately analyze the impacts of leaking oil and gas waste or reserve 

pits and the impacts of the massive amounts of produced water that will be generated.

Response: Efforts are made to prevent discharges of oil and gas waste products so the potential quantity 

is unknown. The potential volumes of produced water are unknown (the quality at the point of discharge 

is managed by WDEQ). Because of the unknown quantities of both types of material and the unknown 

timing and contents of accidental discharge of oil and gas waste, if any, the impacts cannot be analyzed at 

this time or in this document. 

Comment: Disposal methods of contaminated produced waters from conventional gas production should 

be more thoroughly evaluated, particularly in light of the proposed number of wells. In addition, with the 

likelihood that coalbed methane development will likely increase in this planning area, little if any 

analysis or discussion occurred on planning for this. In fact, the little discussion that did occur was a onesentence line that lumped CBM management planning in with traditional oil and gas development. CBM 

development is significantly different, wells are drilled deeper, requires larger drill rigs, larger well pads 

per well, larger pieces of equipment for drilling and a different set of water management techniques than 

those experienced in natural gas drilling. Reserve pits are needed for water discharge, for cuttings, for 

mud disposal, and the water quality varies. Reinjection of pumped water is equal or usually poorer quality 

with unknown results of aquifer contamination, and often ephemeral drainages are receiving the 

discharges with other impacts associated with that action.

Response: The potential for coalbed methane (CBM) development in most of the planning area is quite 

low. In addition, CBM resources in the Pinedale Planning Area differ from those being produced in 

northeast Wyoming. The CBM resource, however, is located at greater depths, which is a significant 

difference. Wells would be deeper, would take longer to drill, and less water would be produced. Water 

quality is the purview of WDEQ. Additional guidelines have been provided in the final version of the 

document. 

Comment: We formally request that the agency provide an accurate estimate of the numbers of 

producing wells, dry holes, and injection wells. We request that the cumulative impacts of all wells and 

associated roads, pipelines and other infrastructure be analyzed fully as part of the NEPA process.

Response: Because the RMP will not authorize any on-the-ground developments, these analyses are 

conducted in the site-specific oil and gas development EISs—for example, those for the Jonah and 

Pinedale Anticline fields. It is not possible to predict in the RMP the location of all roads, wells, and other 

infrastructure that might be proposed by oil and gas operators in the future.

Pinedale RMP A27-477 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

Comment: during this oil and gas production, salt water comes up along with the oil and gas products. 

Where is this going to go? There -- the water, the transportation group determined that there is one and a 

half million gallon shortfall between the production of this salty water and the treatment facilities. If you 

know this, if you’re familiar with the production, you know that the New Fork Treatment Facility recently 

closed down. So what’s going to be done with all this salty water? Why are we going to allow additional 

wells with more salty water that’s going to be -- you know, what’s going to happen to it? It’s going to go 

down a drainage somewhere, and it’s going to end up on somebody’s ranch in somebody’s water.

Response: Discharge of water is under the jurisdiction of WDEQ. All discharged water must meet 

WDEQ standards. Given the quality of the water being produced in this area, most if not all produced 

water will be re-injected or desalinated prior to discharge. BLM is working to assure that the discharge 

points from desalinization facilities are so located that they do not accelerate erosion.

Comment: What are the “other areas of concentrated development ...” “likely [to occur over the life of 

this plan”? What are the ground and surface water resources that would be affected? How would those 

waters be affected? How much water could be extracted or contaminated in, those areas?

Response: Until plans or proposals are submitted, it is not possible to specify where concentrated 

development might be proposed or what impacts may occur.

Comment: Regarding augmented flows, where is this likely to occur and how much increase in flow is 

expected? How would this increased flow impact surface waters (e.g., changes in stream. channel 

morphology, sediment loading, bank scour, etc.)? 

Response: Until proposals for discharge are received, their potential impacts cannot be predicted or 

analyzed.

Comment: On the issue of dewatering, specifically where is this likely to happen and how much water 

would be produced? What is the chemical make-up of this, water and how could its discharge affect 

surface water environments?

Response: Until proposals for dewatering are received, their potential impacts cannot be predicted or 

analyzed.

Comment: The RMP DEIS does not explain what chemicals have been used as drilling fluids or may be 

used in the future for drilling operations in the PRA. It does not disclose how much of the drilling fluids 

end up being pushed into ground waters before the casing is installed. Nor does the DEIS explain what 

health risks these chemicals may pose when introduced to ground waters. Here too, even if a single gas or 

oil well only contributes a relatively small amount of ground water contamination from drilling fluids, the 

cumulative effect of thousands of similar wells drilled through the same aquifers may be very significant., 

Rather than take a hard look at this critically important issue, the DEIS completely ignores it. 

Completion and stimulation operations present similar ground water contamination risks. Fracing, for 

example, involves injecting tons of solvents, gelling agents and sand into the well bore to create and hold 

open fractures in the productive rock layer(s). A single fracing operation may use upwards of a million 

gallons of fracing fluids, and a given well may be subject to multiple fracing operations. Among other 

ingredients, fracing fluids may contain diesel, mineral oil and/or other petroleum distillates, benzene, 

ethylbenzene, trimethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, naphthalene and other polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs), naphtha, methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE), ethoxylated 

nonylphenol, oxyalkylated phenolic. resin, isobutyl alcohol, methanol, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric 

acid, isopropanol, tetramethyl ammonium chloride, hydroxides, peroxides, boric acid, potassium chloride, 

A27-478 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

potassium carbonate, sodium bromate, ammonium persulfate, diammonium peroxidisulfate, fumaric acid, 

dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-l,3-diol, 2,2-dibromo-3-

nitrilopropionamide, and tetrakis-(hydroxy,methyl)-phosphonium sulfate (aka THPS or Mag¬nacide 575 

microbicide). All of these materials can contaminate ground water, some can cause organ (e.g., liver or 

kidney) damage, and several are known or suspected carcinogens. Even cement slurries used to seal or 

repair casings may contain harmful additives such as N,N-dimethylformamide and 2-acrylamido-2-

methylpropane sulfonic acid (e.g., Halad-344). This is just a small subset of potentially harmful chemicals 

that may be used in the PRA under the new RMP. A recent survey found that 362 different chemical 

products are used in oil and gas development and delivery, and that at least 92% (333 chemicals) have 

one or more adverse health effects [22]. These health effects are summarized in the following table (id. at 

3). Table 2: Reported Health Effects of Chemicals Used in Oil and Gas Production “See Table on Page 21 

of document” 

As with drilling fluids, the RMP DEIS does not disclose what chemicals are being used in the PRA for 

completion or stimulation, much less describe the health risks these chemicals pose when introduced to 

ground waters. And it fails to disclose how much fracing fluids remain in the ground after fracing 

operations are completed. While most fracturing fluid injected into a well is returned to the surface 

through flowback, the EPA estimates 20-40% of fracing fluids may remain in the ground [23]. This is 

consistent with a gas industry estimate that 70% of fracing fluids are typically retrieved [22], which 

implies 30% of fluids remain in the ground. This means hundreds of thousands of gallons of fracing fluids 

may end up in ground waters during each fracing operation. Racing fluids can also leak from faulty 

casings or wellheads. For instance, in October 2005 a wellhead valve in Colorado failed, resulting in the 

release of approximately 200 gallons of fracing fluids containing nonylphenol, trimethylbenzene, naphtha, 

ethylbenzene, and xylenes [24]. The operator estimated 15-20 gallons of this fluid entered an irrigation 

ditch. Similar fracing fluid leaks (above and below ground) are undoubtedly occurring in the PRA. 

Although a gallon of fracing fluid may have relatively small amounts of harmful chemicals (e.g., benzene 

and MTBE), the overall volume of fracing fluids being used in the PRA is extremely large; this can lead 

to problematic concentrations of the harmful chemicals in ground waters. Assume conservatively that 

only 10% of fracing fluids are left in the ground, that each fracing operation uses only 50,000 gallons of 

fracing fluids, and that each well will only be fraced three times over the life of the well. With on the 

order of 10,000 wells subject to fracing, the total amount of fracing fluids that may be introduced to 

ground waters in the PRA cumulatively over the next 10-20 years may exceed 150 million gallons. 

More realistically, the total amount of fracing fluids left in the ground throughout the PRA will exceed a 

billion gallons and may approach 10 billion gallons.9 Most of these contaminants will be concentrated in 

the Jonah and PAPA fields. A single tablespoon of MTBE can con¬taminate on the order of 100,000 

gallons of water. And the EPA has established a maximum permissible concentration of 5 ppb for 

benzene for drinking water. However, because benzene is carcinogenic any non-zero concentration in 

domestic-use aquifers is problematic for human health. Water samples taken from more than 80 nearsurface industrial water wells in the Jonah and PAPA gas fields during 2006-2007 tested positive for 

hydrocarbons - including benzene, xylenes and toluene - and at least three of the wells showed 

concentrations of benzene exceeding 5 ppb [25]. The RMP DEIS does not include any of this information, 

even though some of the water quality data were available in 2006.10 In fact, the RMP DEIS completely 

ignores this issue and the risks these introduced compounds pose to ground water quality and human 

health. 

To properly evaluate potential ground water impacts for the new RMP EIS, the BLM should (i) identify 

and disclose the chemicals that are or may be used in drilling, completion and stim¬ulation fluids, (ii) 

disclose the health risks of these chemicals, (iii) estimate the volumes and resulting concentrations of 

Pinedale RMP A27-479 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

potentially harmful compounds that may be introduced to ground waters, and (iv) estimate the directions 

and potential migration rates of contaminated waters. 

Response: We agree that these substances need to be controlled prevent impacts. The draft EIS cites The 

Clean Water Act of 1987, The Safe Drinking Water Act, Wyoming water quality standards and 

regulations, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

of 1986 as authorities that apply to the selection and implementation of management actions in the RMP. 

The RMP is BLM’s management plan; it is the highest level of decisionmaking specific to land uses. An 

RMP generally makes land allocations and provides goals and objectives for managing specific areas of 

land. Mid-level decisions are made in activity plans; they contain more detailed management decisions 

for specific programs (such as potential hazardous wastes) and areas. The activity plan usually selects and 

applies best management practices to meet the goals and objectives of the RMP. The next planning level 

is the project plan, which analyzes site-specific effects associated with individual projects and applies 

onsite mitigation, as necessary. BLM determined that detailed analysis of the types of concerns you have 

addressed—with respect to drilling fluids, fracturing fluids, and other stimulation fluids—would be most 

important to address at the activity plan and project plan levels and not in this RMP. In addition, the 

Environmental Protection Agency considers exploration and production waste to be exempt under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.

Comment: Concerning the identification and disclosure of fluid contents, energy companies have 

claimed the contents of their drilling, completion and stimulation fluids are confidential. However, I 

believe the benefits of ensuring public health and safety by disclosing this information override any 

benefit that might result from operators withholding this information. They are receiving enormous profits 

from public lands and public resources, and disclosing chemical use is a small price to pay for these 

profits. If operators really care about the communities around the PRA, they should willingly disclose this 

information. In addition, while operators may technically be able to claim this information is proprietary, 

the BLM also has ample discretion (and, I believe, a common law legal obligation) to protect ground 

waters by restricting the use of potentially problematic drilling, completion and stimulating fluids in the 

PRA. BLM also has the discretion to make disclosure of fluid contents a requirement of granting an APD. 

Exercising these authorities still preserves the right of all operators to develop their leases, albeit with 

greater assurance of protecting ground waters.

Response: Regulatory protection of groundwaters and regulation of chemical use is the authority of 

WDEQ.

Comment: In the PRA, the BLM has also been allowing well pad waste and reserve pits to be buried on 

site. In such cases, the liners eventually deteriorate and allow leaching of the residual sludge contents. 

The very act of burying a pit can compromise the liner, and even a small hole in an otherwise intact liner 

can allow leachates to begin entering the underlying ground water. In addition to holding concentrated 

versions of drilling, completion and stimulation fluids, reserve pits also contain cuttings from drilling the 

well itself. These cuttings pose other contamination problems. Most obviously, the cuttings can contain 

heavy metals. Less obviously, the sludges can contain radioactive materials. In fact, “[c]ontamination of 

oil and gas facilities with naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) is widespread,” and “NORM 

contamination can be expected at nearly every petroleum facility” [30]. Of particular concern to the PRA, 

,,[p]roduced water may contain dissolved radium which “can lead to contaminated sludges in waste pits 

and radioactive water.” Id. at 12. Examples of other radioactive materials that may be found in sludges 

and produced waters include uranium, thorium, radon, polonium, thorium, lead-210, and bismuth. Radon 

contamination of natural gas is a worldwide problem but “particularly high concentrations are reported in 

the U.S. and Canada.” Id. at 13. Evaporation in waste pits can greatly increase concentrations of heavy 

A27-480 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

metals and radioactive materials. These materials can then enter ground waters if pits are unlined, leak, or 

overflow. Likewise, when pits containing sludge are buried on-site, these materials can begin entering 

ground waters when the liners are compromised or deteriorate. 

The EIS should also disclose: (i) how many pits have already been constructed in the PRA, (ii) how many 

new pits are likely to be constructed in the PRA in the future, (iii) how these pits are or will be lined, (iv) 

how often such pits overflow or leak, (v) how much material typically escapes during such events, (vi) 

what is done once pits are no longer needed, (vii) rate of deterioration of pit liners for pits buried on-site, 

and (viii) leaching rates from pits. From these data, BLM should be able to roughly predict ground water 

contamination risks from pits in the PRA. While some of this information may not be readily available at 

this time (e.g., liner deterioration and leaching rates), BLM should conduct studies needed to obtain the 

missing data as soon as possible, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(a). If BLM can show the cost of 

obtaining any of the missing data would be exorbitant, the agency should utilize accepted scientifically 

accepted theoretical approaches that will allow prediction of potential ground water contamination rates 

from pit leaks, overflow and leaching, as per 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b) (4).11 Moreover, BLM should use 

assumptions that will account for pit-related contamination rates that would have severe consequences 

even if their probability of occurrence is low. Id. 

Response: BLM agrees that these substances need to be controlled to prevent impacts. The draft EIS cites 

The Clean Water Act of 1987, The Safe Drinking Water Act, Wyoming water quality standards and 

regulations, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

of 1986 as authorities that apply to the selection and implementation of management actions in the RMP. 

Appendix 25, Hazard Management and Resource Restoration Program, explains the management of 

hazards on public lands. As stated in Appendix 25: “Detailed management actions specific to hazardous 

materials usage are included as part of environmental analysis conducted for specific oil and gas field 

activities.” The Environmental Protection Agency considers exploration and production waste to be 

exempt under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations. BLM 

has determined that detailed analysis of the types of concerns you have addressed, with respect to well 

pad waste and reserve pits buried onsite, would be most important to address at activity plan and project 

plan levels and not in this RMP. At that time, BLM will identify potential impacts of onsite burial for the 

specific proposed plan, determine the significance of that impact, and prepare a decision to address 

mitigation of any impacts identified.

Comment: The next subject would be water disposal pits. In all alternatives it’s stated very emphatically 

that no disposal pits would be allowed on federal property. Now, this is wrong. This -- need for those 

disposal pits is created on federal property. The reason we need water disposal pits is because of these 

drilling operations that are happening on federal property. This problem is being created by federal action. 

It should be rendered by federal action. We need water disposal pits in the areas where they’re drilling. So 

we’re moving this water from places like the Jonah Field that are very arid, a long ways away from any 

live water source, and putting them right down on the creek bottom. So I think that’s wrong. I think we 

need to remedy that, putting an absolute decree with no water disposal pits would be allowed on federal 

property is wrong.

Response: The final EIS has been revised to consider water disposal pits in certain areas.

Comment: Beyond reserve and waste pits used at drilling sites, there are numerous other containment 

basins in the PRA that pose risks of water contamination. These include, but are not limited to catch 

basins used to capture spilled fluids from industrial equipment, and bermed catchments around 

condensate and produced water tanks. Some of these are located off BLM lands at facilities dedicated to 

serving energy development in the region, As with drilling pits, these holding facilities often contain 

Pinedale RMP A27-481 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

hazardous materials, including chemicals that would render ground or surface waters unusable for 

consumption by people, livestock or wildlife. For example, seven cows were recently found dead near a 

compressor station in the Jonah field all apparently died after drinking hydrocarbon-contaminated water 

from a catchment basin that had been erected to hold spilled fluids released during gas field equipment 

servicing [31]. When such pits and basins leak or overflow, they will contaminate ground water and 

possibly surface water. The RMP DEIS does not discuss these constructs much less evaluate their 

potential impacts to ground waters, surface waters or other components of the environment (e.g., wildlife; 

soils). 

BLM may feel it need not assess the impacts of any pits and basins when they are constructed off BLM 

lands. However, even those facilities located off BLM lands are being used to support BLM-authorized 

activities occurring on BLM lands. Thus, water impacts from these off site pits are indirect and 

cumulative impacts associated with BLM’s authorization of gas field development. 40 C.F.R. §§ 

1508.8(b) and 1508.7. They must be addressed in the RMP EIS. 

In fact, produced water storage ponds have already contaminated ground water in the PRA. Specifically, 

the 10-acre produced water evaporation pond constructed near Daniel leaked pro¬duced waters that 

caused ground water. contamination [36]. Although this pit is now closed, no bond was required and the 

operator has reportedly claimed to lack the funds required to remediate the pollution. Id. The Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has apparently set up monitoring wells around-the site to 

track the spread of the contaminants, but to my knowledge no efforts are currently being made to 

remediate the contamination. The DEIS does not discuss this contamination incident. 

I have also been informed (but have not yet been able to confirm) that a large, produced water storage / 

evaporation pond at the Sand Draw industrial site leaked a significant amount of produced water. At this 

site there are six produced water storage and evaporation ponds covering 31 acres and holding 600,000 

barrels [36]. It is possible at least one of these has leaked, and it is conceivable there are on-going leaks. 

The operator was required to post a $23,415 bond (id.), but this is clearly insufficient to correct any 

substantive ground water. contamination that may result from these ponds. The DEIS does not discuss 

this incident either, or potential for future leaks from this facility or others in the, region. 

Overflows and leaks are not the only problems associated with produced water evaporation and storage 

ponds. As with reserve and waste pits, materials settling out of these ponds create hazardous sludges. 

These sludges can contain concentrated amounts of harmful organics such as benzene, heavy metals, and 

radioactive materials. Greases, oils and soaps - brought up with produced waters - also float on the 

surface of ponds. Although the sludges and “scums” should be hauled to a hazardous material disposal 

facility, it is my understanding EPA is allowing old storage ponds to be buried on site. For instance, three 

of the Calpet LCC storage ponds near Big Piney have reportedly been closed and covered over [36]. 

When the settled sludge residue is left in place and the liners leak - either through punctures or 

deterioration -the sludge will begin leaching into ground waters. This will cause contamination. The DEIS 

ignores this issue. 

Response: BLM agrees that these containment basins and produced water storage ponds need to be 

controlled to prevent impacts. The draft EIS cites The Clean Water Act of 1987, The Safe Drinking Water 

Act, Wyoming water quality standards and regulations, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Emergency 

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 as authorities that apply to the selection and 

implementation of management actions in the RMP. Appendix 25, Hazard Management and Resource 

Restoration Program, explains the management of hazards on public lands. As stated in Appendix 25: 

“Detailed management actions specific to hazardous materials usage are included as part of 

environmental analysis conducted for specific oil and gas field activities.” 

A27-482 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

BLM has determined that detailed analysis of the types of concerns you have addressed, with respect to 

containment basins and produced water storage ponds, would be most important to address at activity 

plan and project plan levels and not in this RMP. At that time, BLM will identify potential impacts of 

onsite burial for the specific proposed plan, determine the significance of that impact, and prepare a 

decision to address mitigation of any impacts identified.

Comment: Volumetrically, produced water is the largest waste generated by the oil and gas industry. 

This is certainly true in the PRA. Indeed, this year alone, BLM estimates about .7 million barrels of 

produced water will be generated in the PAPA field and another 2.5 million barrels will be generated in 

the Jonah field [32]. BLM is projecting that within 10 years produced water generation will exceed 22 

million barrels/year from PAPA and 10 million barrels/year from Jonah. Id. By 2025, PAPA is projected 

to generate nearly 30 million barrels per year, with Jonah continuing to produce in excess of 10 million 

barrels annually. These projections likely represent significant underestimates of future produced water 

burden for several reasons. 

First, the document reporting the projections states “[p]roposed PAPA infill drilling would significantly 

increase fluid production after 2007” and the “fluid production projections for this are NOT included on 

this table.” Second, in deriving these projections, BLM assumed water production per well would remain 

constant over time. For instance, the Jonah projections assume each well will produce 3,000 barrels of 

water per year. Generally, the amount of produced water increases over the life of the well as 

hydrocarbon reserves are depleted. See, e.g., [33] at 42 (“As hydrocarbons are removed from the 

formation, the pressure gradient changes so that the water layer often rises up in the vicinity of the well, 

creating a coning effect. As production continues, an increasing portion of the produced fluids will be 

water.”) And third, these projections only account for produced water generated in the Jonah and PAPA 

fields. Significant additional quantities of produced water will be produced from the fields west of Big 

Piney and La Barge - including coal bed natural gas production - and possibly conventional gas wells in 

the vicinity of the South Rim. But even if total annual produced water generation would only be 33 

million barrels in the PRA by 2018, this is still over 4,200 acre-feet per year - enough to cover some 400 

football fields with 10 feet of highly saline and potentially contaminated waste water every year. Between 

now and 2025, the anticipated rate of produced water generation in the PRA could create a waste-water 

ocean more than 100 feet deep and a mile in diameter. What is going to be done with this staggering 

volume of liquid waste? The RMP DEIS does not disclose the projected volume of produced waste water 

that would be generated under the new RM.P. Nor does the DEIS discuss how this water will be disposed 

of or what impacts this material poses to ground or surface waters.

Response: Produced water will need to meet WDEQ water quality standards prior to surface discharge. 

Discharge locations will be located so as to minimize erosional damage. All water discharges need to be 

approved by WDEQ.

Comment: Stating that augmented flows from surface discharge of produced waters would not cause 

significant environmental damage - as defined by the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health - is not 

the same thing as disclosing how much water could be discharged and what non “rangeland health” 

impacts could occur. The DEIS does not even explain what the Rangeland Health Standards are, what 

they were designed for, or how they would address potential water quality impacts in the PRA.

Response: The Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/grazing/standards_and_guidelines/standards.html 

provide minimal standards for land health. If these standards were to be exceeded, BLM is legally 

required to take actions to address the problem. 

Pinedale RMP A27-483 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

Comment: The DEIS’s discussion of water quality impacts does not even reference past EISs of 

relevance, such as the Jonah II Natural Gas Project Final EIS [12], the Jonah Infill Final EIS [13], the 

original PAPA Final EIS [14], the PAPA Draft Supplemental EIS [8], or the Eagle Prospect Exploratory 

Project Draft EIS [9]. Those NEPA analyses each contain more analysis of water quality impacts than the 

RMP DEIS, despite the fact that the underlying actions each only affect a small portion of the overall 

PRA while the RMP will affect the entire PRA. And even those NEPA water quality discussions were 

grossly inadequate [15].

Response: The EAs and EISs analyze specific activities and thus have the need for greater detail. The 

RMP is an overview document not a library of all data. Much of the related data is referenced either 

through the NEPA process or directly.

Comment: PAGE:2-116 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add the following: Cooperate with 

local governments in identifying land for produced water waste disposal sites under RPPA. 

EXPLANATION: The current policy of trucking produced water to disposal sites has significant and 

unnecessarily adverse environmental impacts. The better solution is to sell land to local government for a 

waste disposal site pursuant to the RPPA. This would allow for cost-effective disposal, reduce truck 

traffic, and avoid the problem of dumping water on private land located in either Lincoln or Sweetwater 

County. In many cases the private land is located nearer or near surface water and the policy of pushing 

the dump sites onto private land adversely affects water quality as well. The local governments urge BLM 

to reconsider its policy and to work with local governments in identifying possible waste water sites 

within Sublette County.

Response: BLM is open to specific proposals, but such an action would require an individual analysis of 

greater intensity than is available at the RMP level. If such a site were created, the discharge from the 

facility would need to be located so as to reduce downstream erosion. Most likely, this would involve 

transportation to one of the larger stream channels in the area. This would involve crossing private lands.

Comment: Given that over 30 million barrels of produced water will be generated every year in the Resource Area under the new RMP, and current treatment (with expansion of the Calpet pits) can only 

accommodate around six million barrels, it is clear there will need to be significant additional produced 

water storage in the region. With new storage ponds will come additional spills and associated ground and 

surface water contamination. The BLM must discuss the storage shortfall and evaluate the inherent risks 

of ground and surface water contamination.

Response: Page 3-40 of the draft EIS reports only 91 million barrels of water production from March 

1996 to March 2006. For this 10-year period, water production averaged only 9.1 million barrels per year. 

BLM expects that the area will need additional produced water storage, but not a significant increase in 

storage capability. BLM has determined that detailed analysis of the types of concerns you have 

addressed, with respect to produced water storage ponds, would be most important to address at activity 

plan and project plan levels and not in this RMP. At that time, BLM will identify potential impacts of 

onsite burial for the specific proposed plan, determine the significance of that impact, and prepare a 

decision to address mitigation of any impacts identified.

Comment: Reuse and Surface Disposal. In the PRA, “[b]etween 40 and 60 percent of water used in well 

completions (fracturing) is produced water with minimal or no treatment.” [8] at 3-82. Some produced 

water is also being used for dust control. Id. The RMP DEIS does not analyze the impacts associated with 

these uses of produced waters. As discussed previously, fracing can result in ground water contamination 

through faulty casings and seals and through communication around the well bore. Although the produced 

waters used for dust control were reportedly treated with reverse osmosis, this process does not extract all 

harmful materials from the end product waters. In particular, the end product waters contain salts and may 

A27-484 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

contain harmful ingredients (e.g., metals), depending on the membranes used [37]. For in-stance, 

Anticline Disposal waters are currently being used for dust suppression but reportedly have TDS 

exceeding 500 mg/l [38]. This water quickly evaporations from roads and margins, leading to salt 

accumulation. Rainfall and snowmelt will subsequent cause those salts to enter ground waters, and run-off 

may cause the salts to enter surface waters. What water quality standards has BLM required before treated 

connate waters can be disposed of on the surface, such as through road watering? What monitoring is 

required to ensure all treated waters meet those standards before being discharged onto roads? How much 

produced water was used for such purposes? How much produced water does BLM anticipate will be 

disposed of for such purposes under the life of the RMP? The DEIS does not answer these questions. In 

fact, it does not even mention that produced waters are being discharged on the surface for dust control.

Response: Much of these concerns are related to WDEQ’s area of authority. The level of 500 ppm TDS 

is the maximum level for potable groundwater based on Chapter 8 of WDEQ water quality regulations. 

The maximum allowable TDS for irrigation is 2,000 ppm and 5,000 for livestock water.

Comment: The RMP DEIS does not discuss disposal of produced water through injection and, therefore, 

does not evaluate the associated impacts to ground and surface waters. All the DEIS says about this issue 

is that “[w]ells would have the potential to affect groundwater quality and quantity through ... injection 

Proper well drilling and completion methods could reduce these impacts but would not entirely eliminate 

them.” RMP. DEIS at 4-169. There is no information presented on how often injection wells contaminate 

ground or surface water, or what the impacts would be from widespread injection in the PRA. What does 

“reduced” mean? For instance, what - level of ground water contamination is expected to occur under the 

“reduced” impact levels anticipated by BLM? How long would contamination last? How far could it 

disperse? What aquifers would be affected? What is the communication between the target aquifer(s) and 

aquifers being used for potable water, agriculture or livestock? If ground waters around an injection well 

are not being removed from the target aquifer at the same rate (e.g., from oil or gas production wells), the 

forced injection into already. full pore spaces of the target -aquifer will hydraulically force the waters 

from that aquifer into other places, which may include faults or fissures leading to adjacent aquifers. How 

are waters surrounding injection wells being monitored to determine if casing leaks or inter-aquifer 

communication are occurring?

Response: WDEQ has primacy with regard to the regulation of injection wells. Therefore, BLM cannot 

estimate related impacts. 

Comment: Discharging produced waters into surface waters is of even greater concern to me than 

discharging onto roads for dust control. The New Fork River is a designated Class 2AB surface water [3] 

and a Class 2 Trout Fishery (the highest rating in the PRA) [10]. There are various restrictions on 

degrading these surface waters. Benzene concentrations, for instance, cannot exceed 1.2 micrograms/liter 

of water for drinking purposes and, for surface waters that are not used for drinking, 71 micrograms/liter. 

See [3], Water Quality Criteria, Appendix B (Priority Pollutants). Treatment of produced waters from 

natural gas wells often leaves much more benzene in solution [33, 35]. How is BLM assuring produced 

waters generated at BLM-approved wells will not violate water quality standards? Some heavy metals are 

particularly harmful to aquatic organisms. The State Water Quality Rules limit chromium and silver 

concentrations to 16 μg/i and 3.4 μg/i respectively.. I do not have data on silver concentrations in PRA 

produced waters, but chromium concentrations are reportedly problematic and may exceed the limit.

Response: WDEQ has primacy with regard to the management of produced waters. Regulation of the 

quality of discharged produced waters is the authority of WDEQ.

Comment: How much produced water does BLM anticipate will be discharged into surface waters under 

the life of the RMP and into the reasonably foreseeable future? What water quality standards has BLM 

Pinedale RMP A27-485 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

required before treated produced waters can be discharged to surface waters such as the New Fork River? 

What monitoring is being done to ensure all treated waters will always meet those standards before being 

discharged into surface waters? What will be done to pre-vent excess discharge that would erode stream 

banks or change stream channel morphology? How will BLM ensure discharged produced waters will 

have temperature and dissolved oxygen content similar to that in the native surface water? The RMP 

DEIS does not answer these questions. As with other aspects of produced water disposal, the RMP DEIS 

does not even mention that produced waters are being discharged into surface waters. While BLM may 

feel the State DEQ is responsible for regulating water discharges, the BLM shares some of this 

responsibility. Indeed, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) - the BLM’s organic act - 

instructs that the public lands must be managed “in a manner that will protect the ... water resource” and 

“provide ... habitat for fish and wildlife....” 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8). And NEPA requires the BLM to. 

assess direct, indirect and cumulative impacts from disposal of produced water in the PRA, regardless of 

which other agency may regulate that disposal. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.

Response: Because of variances in site geology, potential for loss of water or drilling fluids down the 

hole, and potential for re-use of fluids between wells, it is not possible to accurately estimate the amount 

of water that would be used for all oil and gas drilling in the planning area. Regulation of quality of 

discharged produced waters is the authority of WDEQ. Management actions and best management 

practices (BMPs) for surface discharge have been revised in the final EIS. Regulation of quality of 

discharged produced waters is the authority of WDEQ. Management actions and BMPs for surface 

discharge have been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: The coal seams with CBNG potential in the PRA are located several thousand feet below the 

surface, which is much deeper than the coals in the Powder River Basin. As a result, drilling for CBNG in 

this region is more intensive and requires drilling equipment and reserve pits similar to those used for 

conventional gas wells in the PRA. See, e.g., RMP DEIS at 3-41. Thus, all of the foregoing problems I 

discussed in the context of disposing of produced waters from conventional oil and gas wells apply to 

CBNG produced water disposal. For instance, CBNG waters from such depths are likely exhibit poor 

water quality, including high salinity, high concentrations of dissolved heavy metals, and potentially 

harmful organic compounds. And as with conventional wells, extracting CBNG waters can also lead to 

mixing of aquifers and can generate gas pockets and seeps away from wells. CBNG, however, also 

presents a few unique problems. In particular, CBNG operations can generate so much waste water that, 

when discharged to the surface, drainages and stream courses can blow out and severely erode. This can 

not only irreparably damage soils and watersheds, it can cause significant scour and sediment loading 

problems downstream. Resulting impacts can include erosion of stream banks and siltation of spawning 

gravels.

Response: Regulation of quality of discharged produced waters is the authority of WDEQ. Management 

actions and BMPs for surface discharge have been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: At the opposite extreme, CBNG waters can actually be “too clean” for discharge into some 

aquatic ecosystems. Natural surface waters all have some degree of TDS and turbidity. For higher 

elevation trout waters, the TDS and turbidity is usually quite low, but in basin streams, away from 

mountains, the natural TDS and turbidity can be high. Some native aquatic species that inhabit these 

waters require these higher TDS and turbidity conditions to survive. When discharged waters are too 

clean, they can dilute the TDS and reduce turbidity in ways that can harm the native species.13 This has 

been happening in the Powder River Basin. See, e.g., [39] (“When the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality recently planned to issue a discharge permit for 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) 

from a series of proposed ion-exchange treatment system, the state’s Game and Fish Department objected 

that too much clean water could adversely affect the unique aquatic ecology of the sediment-rich Powder 

River” ). I do not know if there are similar conditions in the Upper Green River Basin, but the BLM 

A27-486 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

should take a hard look at this before approving any produced water discharges that might alter surface 

water conditions appreciably from the range of natural variability. Again, State Water Quality Rules not 

only require the agency to prevent degradation of water quality, they also prevent discharges or non point 

source activities that would “adversely alter the structure and function of indigenous or intentionally 

introduced aquatic communities.” Making stream waters too clean could violate this requirement.

Response: Regulation of quality of discharged produced waters is the authority of WDEQ. Management 

actions and BMPs for surface discharge have been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: The RMP DEIS (page 3-41) suggests reinjection is currently being used to dispose of CBNG 

produced waters. However, there are only nine CBNG wells in place, and it is doubtful re-injection would 

be feasible for the amount of produced water that would be generated under more intensive CBNG 

development. And, as noted previously, large-scale re-injection has proven problematic in the very same 

geologic formations in the Powder River Basin [39]. The RMP DEIS does not address these problems but 

appears to assume injection of produced waters would be 100% effective.

Response: WDEQ has primacy with regard to the management of produced waters.

Comment: As for evaluation of impacts, the RMP DEIS (page 4-169) states that de-watering of coalbeds 

in the PRA “could affect both quantity and quality of groundwater, because large areas would be 

potentially dewatered and the produced water would be either reinjected or otherwise man-aged.” But 

other than this, the RMP says nothing. How much CBNG water is likely to be produced in the foreseeable 

future? What is the composition of the produced waters? What will be done with those waters? What are 

the risks of contaminating higher quality ground waters used for domestic purposes, agriculture or 

livestock? The BLM must answer these and other questions about potential impacts to ground and surface 

waters from CBNG development.

Response: WDEQ has primacy with regard to the management of produced waters and water quality.

Comment: BLM anticipates this will require over 100,000 truck loads per year by 2010 and 250,000 

truck loads per year by 2018. Id. Expressed differently, it is expected that between now and 2018 there 

will be over 1,700,000 truckloads of produced water hauled out of the Jonah and PAPA fields. Roughly 4 

million additional barrels of produced water would be conveyed via pipelines to treatment facilities, 

injection wells or to drilling and completion sites. Id. This is a massive amount of waste water to 

transport. And there are going to be spills associated with this conveyance, from produced water storage 

tank leakage, from transport truck accidents, from transfer accidents (e.g., transferring produced waters 

from storage tanks to hauling trucks, and when transferring produced waters from trucks to disposal / 

treatment facilities ), and from faulty pipelines. Even if there is only one truck-related spill for every 

10,000 hauls, the cumulative number of spills ‘could exceed 200 by 2020; collectively these spills could 

discharge hundreds of thousands of gallons of waste waters into ground or surface waters in the PRA. The 

DEIS does not address the impacts from such spills of produced waters. Depending on where the spills 

occur, there is potential’ for contamination to ground waters, surface waters or both. The agency needs to 

take a hard look at these potential impacts and develop ways to avoid or minimize them (more than just 

asserting in the RMP that spills would be cleaned up).

Response: WDEQ has primacy with regard to the management of produced waters.

Comment: The BLM may feel it need not assess the impacts of produced water treatment and disposal 

when the involved facilities are located off BLM lands and were constructed without BLM approval. 

However, nearly all of the produced water in the region is generated on BLM lands under BLM leases, 

and nearly all of the produced waters being stored or treated in produced water pits derives from BLM 

Pinedale RMP A27-487 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

lands or BLM leases. Consequently, BLM has an obligation to assess the impacts associated with 

produced water treatment and disposal facilities - as indirect effects and as cumulative effects, 40 C.F.R. § 

1508.8(b) and 1508.7 - even for facilities located off of BLM lands.

Response: The analysis of cumulative impacts to watershed resources (found in Section 4.19.16 of the 

draft EIS) has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: Thus far, I have only discussed potential contamination from materials pumped into well 

holes or extracted from well holes. There are, however, many other hazardous materials being used in and 

transported through the PRA, and most are associated with the extraction and processing of natural gas. 

Here is a partial list of some materials traveling through the PRA each year: 

• tens of millions of gallons of condensate 

• millions of gallons of diesel fuel to run heavy machinery, generators and other equipment s 

millions of gallons of gasoline used to fuel worker vehicles, water pump engines, etc. 

• hundreds of thousands of gallons of oils used in machinery (including motor oil, gear oil, 

transmission fluids, brake fluids and other hydraulic fluids) 

• considerable amounts of ethylene glycol used in gas dehydrators and for engine coolant 

• transported hazmat chemicals used in drilling, completion, and stimulation fluids 

• extensive solvents used to clean machinery 

• chemicals used to suppress dust on dirt roads 

• NORM residues and radioactive materials used in well logging instruments 

• herbicides and pesticides used to control invasive or “nuisance” species (including prairie dogs 

and coyotes) 

• vast amounts of sewage and treatment chemicals from portable restroom facilities 

Through many separate incidents essentially all of these materials have been spilled in and around the 

PRA. With the unprecedented increase in activity that would result from the Jonah and PAPA Infill 

projects, the rates and volumes of hazmat spills will greatly increase during the life of the new RMP. Such 

spills will contaminate ground and surface waters. This is indisputable.

Response: Specific actions regarding spill containment and bioremediation is beyond the scope of the 

RMP. The appropriate course of action would be determined on a case-by-case basis in a fielddevelopment EIS depending on the location of the spill and the types of chemicals used.

Comment: Just to put things into perspective for the Pinedale Resource Area, BLM anticipates that in the 

year 2018 alone there will be a need to transport approximately 15 million barrels - over 600 million 

gallons - of condensate out of the Jonah field using 50,000 odd truck hauls BLM-PW-table. Between now 

and the end of 2018, the projections indicate a need to transport over 110 million barrels - roughly 5 

billion gallons - of condensate out of Jonah using nearly 400,000 truck hauls. Id. There will be accidents 

and spills during some of these hauls. I expect a comparable or greater amount of condensate will be 

transported out of the Pinedale Anticline field during the same period, though it seems BLM is assuming 

much of this will be conveyed through pipelines. Id. Pipelines are susceptible to leaks, both in route and 

at the charging and discharging points. It is my understanding pipelines in the PRA typically have 

lifetimes of less than 10 years before corrosion begins causing leaks. The DEIS ignores these issues. 

Response: Specific actions regarding spill containment and bioremediation is beyond the scope of the 

RMP. The appropriate course of action would be determined on a case-by-case basis in a fielddevelopment EIS depending on the location of the spill and the types of chemicals used.

A27-488 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

Comment: It is my understanding the number of vehicle accidents in Sublette County has more than, 

doubled in the past five years, in direct proportion to the expansion of drilling activities in the PRA gas 

fields. Based on projected increases in drilling and work force requirements, I anticipate the number of 

annual vehicle accidents in Sublette County will double again in the next 10 years. Cumulatively, the 

associated spills will impact ground and surface waters in the PRA. Although many of these motor 

vehicle accidents will occur off BLM lands, the accidents will still be attributable to the gas fields and, 

therefore, to BLM decisions to authorize the field development. Accordingly, BLM has an obligation to 

evaluate the impacts of these spills. The RMP DEIS does not do this.

Response: Specific actions regarding spill containment and bioremediation is beyond the scope of the 

RMP. The appropriate course of action would be determined on a case-by-case basis in a fielddevelopment EIS depending on the location of the spill and the types of chemicals used.

Comment: Many other hazmat spills - reported and unreported - are occurring on well pads and at 

maintenance shops and support facilities associated with the gas fields (e.g., gas processing stations, Sand 

Draw industrial park, M&N). This includes ethylene glycol from dehydrators, condensate from storage 

tanks, and equipment fuels and oils. Materials from these spills can infiltrate directly into ground waters 

and be carried into surface waters through storm water run-off. There seems to be a pervasive attitude that 

a few gallons spilled here or there won’t be a problem. Indeed, EnCana’s local Environmental 

Coordinator recently reported “some spills on the [Jonah] field are of small enough quantities that they do 

not need to be reported” [44]. But when a few gallons of hazardous chemicals are spilled at each of the 

thousands of sites in the PRA, the cumulative impacts to ground water can be very problematic. In 

addition to chemical spills, there is also risk of radioactive contamination [30] : 

“Although entire natural gas and NGL [natural gas liquid] systems may be contaminated with NORM 

[naturally occurring radioactive materials], some facilities will be contaminated to the extent that they 

present significant decontamination and disposal problems. * * * Pipeline sludges can obtain small 

radium-226 concentrations together with a few hundred to several thousand picocuries of radon decay 

products per gram.. These sludges require the same handling as low-level radioactive wastes. The pig 

itself may be contaminated. * * * Machine shops present a special NORM situation. For example, pumps 

in NGL service may be among the most highly contaminated equipment in a plant. * * * Because 

rebalancing [pumps] is usually done by grinding until balance is established, the grinding may generate 

significant quantities of radioactive dust that can contaminate personnel as well as the shop facility. This 

can pose a very serious problem if contract machine shops are used. * * * [F]ilter assemblies in dry-gas 

service may be contaminated with very high concentrations of NORM and require special handling to 

prevent inhalation of the radioactive dust and contamination of the environment during changing of the 

filters and other required maintenance. * * * Decontamination of facilities by sandblasting can generate 

large volumes of NORM wastes. * * * Reaming out scale from production pipe can generate large 

quantities of NORM.” 

Thus, facilities in and around the PRA may be (and probably are) generating radioactive wastes, including 

pipe scale and sludge, dusts, and sandblasting residues. These materials - if not properly handled - could 

contaminate ground and surface waters. I suspect flare pits may also be locations where NORM 

accumulations occur (along with heavy metals and potentially harmful chemicals). When these pits are 

covered over, infiltration can cause leaching of contaminants into ground waters, and this may include 

radioactive materials. To my knowledge, the BLM is not requiring any testing for radioactivity in the 

PRA.14 Nor is BLM requiring potentially radioactive wastes to be handled and disposed of properly.

Response: Specific actions regarding spill containment and bioremediation is beyond the scope of the 

RMP. The appropriate course of action would be determined on a case-by-case basis in a fielddevelopment EIS depending on the location of the spill and the types of chemicals used.

Pinedale RMP A27-489 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

Comment: Because these facilities exist to process natural gas made available through BLM leases and 

drilling permits, the BLM has an obligation to address the impacts of chemical and radiological spills 

from these facilities. The RMP DEIS does not do this. The DEIS’s entire discussion of impacts to ground 

and surface waters from hazmat spills is found in the following sentence: “Chemical spills on the surface 

would have the potential to penetrate into the soil and ground-water.” RMP DEIS at 4-168. This is not an 

analysis of impacts; it is a statement of the obvious that would be true anywhere in the world for any type 

of development plan or project. And there is no mention whatsoever of radioactive wastes.

Response: Specific actions regarding spill containment and bioremediation is beyond the scope of the 

RMP. The appropriate course of action would be determined on a case-by-case basis in a fielddevelopment EIS depending on the location of the spill and the types of chemicals used.

Comment: Not all ground water stays in the ground; some eventually discharges into surface waters. As 

such, when ground water is contaminated in, the region, it can end up contaminating surface waters. The 

RMP DEIS does not discuss this issue. However, the PAPA Draft Supplemental EIS (page 3-72) contains 

the following short discussion on discharge of ground waters to surface waters in the PRA [8]: “Probably 

less than half the recharge in the PAPA is to groundwater alluvium to surface water. A small fraction of 

the recharge passes through the alluvium into the Wasatch aquifer. The Wasatch in turn appears,. from 

potentiometric data, to discharge some groundwater to the New Fork River in the reach crossing the 

anticline.” I believe this description is essentially correct (though it likely understates the fraction of 

recharge in the anticline region passing into the Wasatch aquifer). Therefore, when there are risks of 

contaminating ground waters, surface waters are also at risk. The New Fork River wraps around the 

Pinedale Anticline. This surface water therefore has the potential to be contaminated from ground waters 

flowing to the northeast off the Anticline as well as to the southwest off the Anticline. The Green River 

may also be at risk of contamination from contaminated ground waters flowing to the west off the 

Anticline. Ground waters throughout much of the Jonah field likely flow north towards the New Fork 

River, though the ground waters in the southeastern part of this field may flow towards the Big Sandy 

River. The Final EIS and any revised or supplemental DEIS must carefully investigate these risks and 

analyze impacts that could occur to surface waters if these rivers are contaminated by migrating 

contaminated ground waters.

Response: WDEQ has primary authority with regard to the management of produced waters and surface 

discharges. NEPA regulations do not require that all the data from tiered documents be in the parent 

document.

Comment: Also CBM discharged waters an issue which has been totally glossed over in the DEIS. In our 

scoping comments we requested that the RMP include provisions requiring that all threats to public 

health, safety, or welfare, or to the environment, be reported immediately and that BLM immediately 

order that all wells causing problems be shut-in pending further investigation. Such provisions should 

apply to all aspects of oil and gas extraction. The RMP has no such provisions. We again request that 

such provisions be included in the FEIS. This is BLM’s responsibility to monitor, not industry’s. 

Response: Alternatives 3 and 4 provide provisions for the management/discharge of produced water, see 

pages 2-97 and 2-139 of the draft EIS. It also states on these pages that produced water from CBNG wells 

would be handled employing the same methods used for treatment of produced water from traditional gas 

or oil wells. 

Comment: The BLM seems to be assuming that 100% of any produced ground water would either seep 

back into the ground or. would be discharged into surface waters, thus increasing flows in the Colorado 

River Basin. See, e.g., PAPA Draft SEIS at 4-116 (where BLM asserts that because produced ground 

water would “be returned to the Colorado River Basin” it will “be considered as a contribution [to stream 

A27-490 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

flows] and ... there would be no net depletion associated with the project”). In actual fact, a significant 

portion of the produced water will be disposed of in ways that will not contribute to stream flows. For 

example, evaporation is currently being used to dispose of large volumes of produced waters. And 

sprinkler systems used on evaporation and settling ponds greatly amplify the evaporation rate. Essentially 

all of the evaporated water is lost to the atmosphere and carried over the Continental Divide. Other 

produced water is disposed of through deep injection. These deep aquifers generally provide little or no 

contribution to surface waters ... which is precisely why they are being used to dispose of potentially toxic 

waste water.25 Even in reverse osmosis technique there are significant water losses. This is because for 

every gallon of water treated (i.e., desalinized) several additional gallons of water are needed to carry off 

the salt extract. The latter - with even greater concentrations of salts and other harmful ingredients than 

the original brine - has to be discarded by some other method, presumably through evaporation or deep 

injection. The reverse osmosis recovery rate (the volume of desalinated water produced divided by the 

volume of water fed into the system) is typically 30% for purifying ocean water to drinking water 

standards, but the recovery efficiency decreases with increasing TDS. See, e.g., [37]. Some produced 

waters in the PRA are more saline than ocean water. See Table 1 earlier in these comments. Higher 

recovery rates can be achieved by using more permeable membranes. However, this will allow greater 

amounts of salinity and other harmful chemicals (e.g., benzene, toluene, MTBE) to pass through the 

membrane into the "treated" water.

Response: The State of Wyoming has primacy on this issue. BLM does not permit water wells, issue 

discharge permits, or grant water rights.

Comment: The RMP DEIS does not present data on the anticipated methods of produced water disposal 

and the respective treated volumes, so I cannot calculate what fraction of produced water will be lost 

through evaporation or deep injection. The information I have about water treatment in the PRA suggests 

nearly all produced water is currently being treated by evaporation with only one operating reverse 

osmosis facility (Anticline Disposal) which is treating an average of 15,000-20,000 gallons per day [36]. 

However, all of the treated water from this facility is being sold and re-used in the gas fields for drilling 

and fracing fluids. The treated water does not. satisfy drinking water standards, and none of the treated 

water is being discharged back into surface waters in the PRA. Even if this facility were permitted and 

able to discharge 20,000 barrels of treated water every day into the New Fork River, this would only 

increase surface water flows by less than 3 acre-feet per day. This is far less than sum of the reasonably 

foreseeable surface water depletions I outlined in the preceding pages (even ignoring water depletions 

from secondary employment and from evaporation, seepage and evapotranspiration losses associated with 

ponds, irrigation ditches, reservoirs, etc.). Thus, no matter how you slice it, there will still be a significant 

net reduction in surface flows under the new RMP. And this will harm, not help, the endangered species 

that depend on high flows in the Colorado River Basin.

Response: This is the responsibility of the individual private companies and the State of Wyoming. 

Comment: 5. Assumptions stated in leasing documents imply that local surface and aquifer water 

resources will be provided for oil and gas operations. While water may be available in formations 

developed, the quality of water may impair subsurface resources. Recent Sublette Examiner (May 3, 2007 

page 15; see attachment 2) Newspaper articles have noted a number of wells being monitored after 

Benzene and levels of other produced water pollutants were detected in wells in the gas fields.

Response: Water wells and surface water withdrawals require authorization from the Wyoming State 

Engineer’s Office. Water quality falls under the jurisdiction of WDEQ. BLM is coordinating/cooperating 

with both of these state agencies concerning the recent detections.

Pinedale RMP A27-491 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

Comment: At public meeting the concern has been stated on leakage from liners which contain produced 

water and how liners may be ripped or intentionally cut to hasten emptying of production water pools 

with the resulting contaminates deposited in the glacial till or water courses in the RMP area. See Eric 

Stinson’s testimony at the public meeting in the RMP in Pinedale in April, 2007.

Response: Through site inspections, BLM has occasionally noted that some pit liners have developed 

tears in areas at and above the pit fluid level. Where this has been noted, the operator has been required to 

lower the fluid level and patch the tear or remove all fluids and close the pit. BLM has no confirmation 

that pit liners have been ripped intentionally to drain the fluids. There are currently no produced water pits 

on BLM-administered lands. Operators are authorized through federal regulations to place produced 

water for up to 90 days in the reserve pits used for drilling operations. The reserve pits contain drill 

cuttings and excess drill mud that come back up the well bore. The drill mud by design is intended to seal 

formations and as such, would also have a strong tendency to seal the earth below any tears or rips in the 

liners. The BLM Pinedale Field Office also requires that operators use closed-loop drilling systems rather 

than reserve pits when ground water occurs within 50 feet of the ground surface.

Comment: PAGE: 4-174, SECTION: 4.15.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE [No produced 

waters would be discharged into surface drainages.] (STRIKEOUT) Produced water may be discharged 

into surface drainages when authorized by WDEQ. This would reduce the potential for channel incision, 

sediment transport, and water quality degradation associated with channel adjustments from that of 

Alternative 2. EXPLANTION: See Comments ## 60, 65

Response: Management actions and BMPs for surface discharge have been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE:2-141 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:[b. In areas of concentrated oil and 

gas development, a groundwater monitoring program could be established to detect pollution and assure 

that the groundwater resource remains unaffected.](strikeout) EXPLANATION: Move, unrelated to 

objective.

Response: The action item is related to the objective of addressing point source pollution.

Comment: 2-139, Alternative 4, Objective 4 & Actions: The Objective is precatory and therefore 

discretionary and unenforceable. In addition, it does not actually require preventing degradation of waters 

by point source pollution, but merely re-quires point source pollution to be “addressed” (i.e. responded to) 

under “guidance” of other agencies. Action (a) is laudable - wellhead protection plans are urgently 

needed. Unfortunately, the proposed language does not set a time line for development of any wellhead 

protection plans and does not actually require that those plans be honored. All the language requires is 

that BLM assist in developing the plans. Furthermore, this language about wellhead protection falls under 

the “point source pollution” objective when non-point source pollution (e.g., spilled fracing fluids, 

leaching of residues from produced waters used for dust suppression on roads) also threatens ground 

waters. Action (b) requires nothing at all. It merely suggests that a groundwater monitoring program 

“could” be established, without actually requiring this. Even if such a program were developed, the DEIS 

does not provide any details about the monitoring activities so the public has no way to gauge whether it 

would be effective. Action (b) also limits application of possible ground water monitoring to “areas of 

concentrated oil and gas development” without saying what “concentrated” means. This would allow 

large areas of the PRA - where ground waters may be impacted by less concentrated activities - to be 

ignored.

Response: Objective 4 establishes the intent of BLM to cooperate with other agencies. These regulations 

and guidance provide the needed details.

A27-492 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

Comment: 2-139, Alternative 4, Objective 5 & Actions: This Objective is sensible but, as with the 

others, it is just precatory and is not binding. And the Actions listed under this Objective only address 

produced water discharges. Other activities can cause damage to stream channels, including logging, road 

construction, pipeline construction, livestock grazing, ORV use, and other construction activities. Action 

(g.l) does not specify what “reclamation” means, so this would allow produced waters to be used for 

many different activities. Action (g.2) is incomprehensible: did BLM mean to say produced waters could 

be discharged on public lands only if there was NO other avenue for disposal available? Action (g.3) also 

allows discharge of produced waters in ways that can adversely impact ground and surface waters. It is 

essentially the same as Action (d) under Objective 1 in that it allows discharge of produced waters with 

TDS up to 2,000 mg/l. This means produced waters with relatively high TDS could be discharged onto 

grounds with near-surface aquifers containing potable waters with less than 500 mg/l that are being used 

for human consumption. This would allow degradation of ground waters. In addition, if produced waters 

with 1500-2000 mg/l TDS were disposed of on public lands (e.g., roads, reclaimed well pads), the water 

would quickly evaporate and the salt would accumulate in the soils. Repeated sprayings of produced 

waters on the same site would lead to increased soil salinity. Snowmelt and storm runoff would then 

dissolve the surface salts and carry the saline waters into surface waters. Action (g.4) would not address 

this problem because it only restricts produced water discharge that would adversely affect soil quality - 

specifically, infiltration and fertility - not ground water quality or surface runoff water quality. Salt can 

accumulate on soils without noticeably affecting in-filtration or fertility. Action (g.6) does not specify 

what the BLM deems to be “appropriate vegetation communities.” Action (g.7) disallows surface runoff, 

but this would only apply to produced water discharge. Snow melt and storms could still cause surface 

runoff and carry salts accumulating from produced water discharge into surface waters. Action (g.8) relies 

on an “approved vegetation management plan” and “weed management plan” but these do not exist yet 

and are not included in the DEIS for public review and comment. Action (g.9) states that produced water 

disposal would be “closely monitored” but the DEIS does not actually require any particular type of 

monitoring. That Action also states "prompt action" would be taken to “address errors” but there is no 

explanation of what “prompt” means (it could mean a day, a month or a year), and “addressing” errors 

merely requires some response; it does not actually require correcting the error. And Action (g.12) - 

which states. reclamation irrigation, using produced waters, would not be “considered a primary means of 

water disposal” - does not actually limit how much produced water could be disposed of through 

irrigation. Over the short-term (e.g., seasonally or even for years) this language would allow the majority 

of produced waters to be disposed of through irrigation discharge so long as BLM does not “consider” 

that to be a primary means of disposal over the long-term.

Response: Information has been added to Appendix 5 to replace this section and provide further 

guidance. Reclamation can take many forms, and, therefore, the use of produced water needs to be 

afforded some flexibility. There would be interactions between the actions in this section. Therefore, the 

entire group of actions needs to be considered. Action g.2 requires that the limited irrigation allowed 

under this action would not be the only path for the water. So when the ideal volume of water to establish, 

but not maintain, (action g.10) vegetation is applied to the surface, there would not be resistance from the 

water source to stop the flow to the reclamation site. By law, WDEQ is responsible for water quality. 

Action g.3 acknowledges this fact. Actions g.4, g.5, and g.10 address the concerns regarding salt 

accumulations. 

As stated before, WDEQ is responsible for water quality. Most of the reclamation efforts would be on 

uplands and the irrigation would be short term, potentially resulting in minor increases in soil salt content. 

Because only the upper limit is set by WDEQ regulations, the exact amount of additional salts cannot be 

accurately estimated. The appropriate vegetative communities would be determined in the individual 

reclamation plans. As stated before, one must look at the entire package and the interactions among the 

management actions. Timing, water quality, and volume would reduce the total potential for additional 

salts. The need to establish an appropriate vegetation community would also limit the total amount and 

Pinedale RMP A27-493 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

types of additional salts. Snow melt would be part of the process of vegetation reclamation. The variations 

in land and vegetation throughout the PFO require that reclamation goals be established on a site-specific 

basis. Therefore, any overarching reclamation plan would be general in nature with specific goals being 

relegated to specific locations. 

Water quality is the purview of WDEQ. The need for successful reclamation would provide additional 

incentive to maintain adequate water quality. The potential number and types of errors that are inherent in 

the development of the hydrocarbon resource and reclamation are numerous and varied enough to 

preclude an inclusive list of prescribed actions at the RMP scale. 

This set of actions is designed to allow for the possible use of the tool of irrigation. The amount of 

reclamation that might be irrigated is unknown. Whether or not irrigation would be a viable method of 

reclamation is unknown. The answers to these questions would most likely vary over time as would the 

need for transportation systems to move the water to the different sites. In some cases, the amount of 

reclamation may require the bulk of the produced water. This is acceptable, provided that when there is 

not a need for the water to maintain the appropriate vegetative community, it can be disposed of through 

other approved methods. 

Comment: The only water-related direction in Appendix 5 are the following items: REDUCING 

IMPACTS TO AIR QUALITY 

(a) Use water and dust suppressant on roads to achieve 50% control of road dust on 90% of BLM 

resource roads 

REDUCING IMPACTS FROM FLUID MINERAL CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND 

RECLAMATION 

(b) Directional drilling. 

(c) Drilling multiple wells from a single pad 

(d) Closed drilling systems 

(e) Transportation planning (i.e., to reduce road density and traffic volumes) 

(f) Piping of produced liquids to centralized tank batteries offsite to reduce traffic to individual wells 

(g) Bussing of workers (i.e., to reduce traffic volume) 

(h) Flareless well completions 

(i) Hard-line fracing 

(j) Burying of distribution power lines and flow lines in or adjacent to access roads 

(k) Design and construction of all new roads to a safe and appropriate standard, “no higher than 

necessary” to accommodate their intended use 

(I) Reuse of the old roads or pads 

(m) Interim reclamation of well locations and access roads soon after the well is put into production 

(n) Avoidance of facility placement on steep slopes, ridge tops, and hilltops. 

(o) Storage of chemicals within secondary containment in case of a spill 

(p) Onsite bioremediation of oil field wastes and spills 

RMP DEIS, Appendix 5, pages A5-2 and A5-3 (alphabetic enumeration added for reference). Mitigation 

item (a) - while reducing air pollution - would end up causing significant water depletions. In fact, 

achieving 50% dust reduction on 90% BLM resource roads would require vast amounts of water. In 

addition, using produced water for dust suppression would allow salts and other contaminants to enter 

ground waters and surface waters. 

A27-494 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

The other directives (b-p) are all laudable and have the potential to reduce water quality degradation. 

Unfortunately, as I’ve explained before, they are purely discretionary, so there is no assurance any would 

be carried out if adopted for the new RMP. I’ve also explained some problems with these measures (see 

previous discussion on Appendix 5 mitigation). Notably, there is no direction on what types and 

quantities of chemicals would require secondary containment, and there is no direction regarding the 

types of spills bioremediation could be used to address. Nor is there direction concerning bonding 

requirements for spill clean-up or bioremediation, such as eliminating benzene contamination in ground 

waters. Given that contamination of ground waters could be caused by many different sources (e.g., 

drilling operations), there is a need for this kind of direction.

Response: Appendix 5 has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: Another problem with relying on State water quality standards is that the DEQ has not set 

water quality standards for some of the potentially harmful chemicals that may be used in drilling, 

completion, and stimulation of oil and gas wells. After identifying all chemicals that may be used for such 

purposes in the PRA, the BLM should develop specific water quality criteria that will protect human 

health (including chronic, long-term exposure to dilute concentrations).

Response: Water quality is the purview of the state.

Comment: (Emphasis supplied.) The DEIS does not evaluate lands for mineral withdrawal or potential 

NSO stipulations to protect water resources, even though there are Class 1 surface waters and Class I 

ground waters that could be adversely impacted by development in the PRA. I am asking BLM to adopt 

the following measures to protect areas with important water resources: 

• To protect recharge areas of domestic ground water supplies, designate as unavailable for leasing 

and NSO all unleased lands along the Wind River Front (north and east of U.S. 191) as well as 

the recharge areas for Big Piney / Marbleton, La Barge, Daniel, Bondurant, and Hoback Ranches. 

Important recharge areas with existing valid leases should be prioritized for purchase and 

retirement using off site mitigation funds. To the extent practicable, NSO stipulations should also 

be applied to these lands. Recharge areas shown in Figure 6 which are not currently important for 

domestic water supplies should be designated NSO. 

• Institute NSO stipulations over all “high” sensitivity aquifers (red areas in Figure 3). 

• Institute NSO stipulations within 2 miles of any domestic use water well; minerals 4,000 feet or 

greater below the surface may be extracted using directional or slant drilling from permissible 

areas outside the 2 mile radius. Provided adequate ground water monitoring is conducted, this 

buffer should allow BLM to identify a contaminant plume before it can affect the health of people 

consuming well water. Where ground water movement is more rapid and ground water 

monitoring wells are scarce, a 3 mile NSO buffer should be applied. 

• Institute NSO stipulations within 1 mile of any Class II or Class III ground water well used for 

agriculture or livestock. 

• Withdraw from leasing and institute NSO stipulations within 1 mile of the Class 1 waters of the 

Upper Green River from the confluence of the New Fork River to the Wilderness Boundary. 

Where side drainages along the Green River are steep or contain flowing water for part of the 

year, a 2 mile NSO buffer should be used. 

Pinedale RMP A27-495 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

• Withdraw from leasing and institute NSO stipulations within 1/2 mile of the New Fork River and 

other Class 2 surface waters. Where side drainages are steep or contain flowing water for part of 

the year, a 1 mile NSO buffer should be used. 

• Withdraw from leasing and institute NSO stipulations within any crucial or highly sensitive 

watershed (e.g., Tip Top watershed, Soap Holes watershed). 

• Withdraw from leasing and institute NSO stipulations on all lands within any ACEC, Wilderness 

Study Area, or proposed Wild, Scenic or Recreational River corridor. 

• NSO stipulations, as with all other direction in the RMP, should apply to federal and non-federal 

surfaces when federal leases of subsurface minerals are involved.

Response: The areas available and unavailable for oil and gas leasing have been revised in the final EIS. 

As a multiple use agency, BLM considered the management of many resources in determining 

appropriate areas to be available and unavailable for leasing. The suggestions for NSO stipulations would 

cover essentially all of the Pinedale planning area. It would not be reasonable or prudent to apply such 

restrictive stipulations over such an extensive area. NSO stipulations would prohibit activities that would 

not impact aquifers; while other activities that might have impacts would not be regulated by an NSO 

stipulation, which would apply only to oil and gas operations.

Comment: PAGE: 4-169, SECTION: 4.15.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Wells would have 

the slight potential to affect groundwater quality and quantity through withdrawal, injection, or 

communication along the path of the well. Proper well drilling and completion methods could reduce 

these impacts. [but would not entirely eliminate them.] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: EIS overstates 

impacts to aquifer from drilling. WDEQ regulates reinjection which does not occur unless aquifer is not 

potable.

Response: This statement has been misinterpreted by the reviewer. BLM finds that the analysis is 

appropriate.

Comment: PAGE: 4-169, SECTION: 4.15.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE [Year-round] 

(STRIKEOUT) Drilling could affect watershed health and water quality, primarily through runoff during 

the times that soils are saturated. Roads and well pads, although mostly protected by a gravel surface, are 

more vulnerable to disturbance and rutting than when the soils are dry. This is a slight risk. 

EXPLANATION: Timing is a minor if any issue for drilling. Summer time drilling sees thunderstorms 

that cause flash floods and runoff from dirt roads. Impacts are equally intense.

Response: This statement has been misinterpreted by the reviewer. BLM finds that the analysis is 

appropriate.

Comment: PAGE: 4-169, SECTION: 4.15.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Increased truck trips 

to take produced water to private lands for disposal cause additional impacts on roads and water pollution 

as well. EXPLANATION: See Comments Ch. 2-61.

Response: Actions in the draft EIS are intended to reduce, not increase, truck trips. 

Comment: The Final EIS (and any revised or supplemental draft EIS) must also fully discuss all 

conceivable “reuse” options for produced waters as well as drilling, completion and stimulation fluids. I 

have previously outlined some concerns about reuse of produced water, but these concerns were largely 

about using water that was not treated properly. The BLM should therefore evaluate the feasibility of 

requiring produced waters to be treated to potable standards rather than irrigation or agricultural use 

A27-496 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

standards. What technologies could achieve these standards reliably? What would the costs be of 

implementing these technologies, relative to the amount of revenues being generated by the gas fields?

Response: Water is the purview of the State of Wyoming

Comment: PAGE:2-151, SECTION: Sage Brush, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [• Condensate and 

produced water would be transported from well locations by pipelines rather than by trucks when 

feasible.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: Unnecessary and likely to cause greater surface damage and 

disruption than trucking. Local governments also point out that trucking out produced water has 

significant adverse environmental impacts that must be addressed. See also CLG Comments on PAPA 

SEIS.

Response: This action would help to achieve the objective of reducing habitat fragmentation and human 

presence in crucial habitats. The impacts of trucking water led to the inclusion of this action.

Groundwater and Aquifers 

Comment: Too little information is provided as available to make sound decisions on what the aquifer 

and surface water resources are in the planning area as especially those areas influenced by the Green 

River and New Fork River drainages. Without adequate detailed analysis of the hydrological system in 

these drainages, correct decisions regarding land use are flawed since it is unknown as to the negative and 

cumulative direct and indirect effects of various developments on all resource uses. Contamination in one 

small area has the potential for spreading throughout a section or all an aquifer. The potential is too large 

to not address the potential for contamination of these watersheds that will affect downstream users 

within Wyoming, other states and international waters shared with Mexico. 

BLM needs more scientific data on aquifers and watershed flows to realistically be able to determine the 

potential impacts of different disturbances of leasing options on continuing the overall health of the land 

resources. 

1. Currently the area is in a prolonged and serious drought with state determinations of severity of drought 

on range and forage supplies. Newspaper articles document that ranchers have been receiving federal 

financial support to enable them to provide forage for livestock the past few years in Sublette County and 

in he majority of the RMP area. 

2. Soil water recharge is slowed and the same impacts affect wildlife as cattle. On many of the ridges used 

by antelope during their migration there are small ephemeral ponds and springs of water. The sites are 

noticeable by the presence of “buffalo grass” (a common name by a local rancher) which is a 3-4 foot tall 

graminoid that is found associated with shallow surface water along roads and ridges in the general Cora 

and potholes area. Currently many of these ponds and springs are dry and the buffalo grass is not growing 

which suggests a lowering water table or little subsurface recharge. As mentioned in the draft EIS, 

antelope are water dependent as are other wildlife species, so land use decisions must include the direct 

and indirect cumulative impacts of actions that change the hydrology and surface flow in an area and 

could add to the detrimental effects on wildlife. 

3. This current spring of 2007 there was little to no surface runoff as evidenced by the dry meadows and 

hayfields and creeks in this area. In my neighborhood, the hay meadows and streams off Noble Road had 

little water and were dry by early June. Even with the irrigation water from New Fork Lake, the water 

levels are lower than normal and many wetland areas are dry. Water flow information for recent years 

needs to be given more support given national NOAA predictions of the drying trend and expected 

changes regionally as noted in seasonal temperature increases and water shortages. This trend continues 

the larger scale one for the Wind River Mountains that has shown the glaciers are retreating and spring 

Pinedale RMP A27-497 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

summer runoff patterns are changing; various recent scientific studies have provided data on this 

changing pattern. 

4. Other planning documents for leasing options imply water resources will be available and that annual 

recharge flow rates will be adequate to maintain water demands for resources such as agriculture and 

fisheries. These assumptions need to be verified by scientifically justifiable data of trends over years. 

5. Assumptions stated in leasing documents imply that local surface and aquifer water resources will be 

provided for oil and gas operations. While water may be available in formations developed, the quality of 

water may impair subsurface resources. Recent Roundup Newspaper articles have noted a number of 

wells being monitored after Benzene and levels of other produced water pollutants were detected in wells 

in the gas fields. 

6. At public meeting the concern has been stated on leakage from liners which contain produced water 

and how liners may be ripped or intentionally cut to hasten emptying of production water pools with the 

resulting contaminates deposited in the glacial till or water courses in the RMP area. See Eric Stinson’s 

testimony at the public meeting in the RMP in Pinedale in April, 2007.

Response: The best available data were used in preparing the draft EIS. Drought is a factor that must be 

considered in many aspects of living in the West. However, its extent, duration, and effects are 

unpredictable, and it is difficult to predict appropriate actions in a document of this scope. Water quality 

monitoring and regulation are the purview of the State of Wyoming and are addressed through WDEQ. 

Issues of water rights and volumes of diversions are addressed through WSEO. Requirements for pond 

liners and other well site maintenance items are found in the application for permit to drill (APD) for each 

site. Compliance with APD conditions would be required. 

Comment: Too little information is provided as available to make sound decisions on what the aquifer 

and surface water resources are in the planning area as especially those areas influenced by the Green 

River and New Fork River drainages. Without adequate detailed analysis of the hydrological system in 

these draipages, correct decisions regarding land use are flawed since it is unknown as to the negative and 

cumulative direct and indirect effects of various developments on all resource uses. Contamination in one 

small area has the potential for spreading throughout a section or all an aquifer. The potential is too large 

to not address the potential for contamination of these watersheds that will affect downstream users 

within Wyoming, other states and international waters shared with Mexico. BLM needs more scientific 

data on aquifers and watershed flows to realistically be able to determine the potential impacts of different 

disturbances of leasing options on continuing the overall health of the land resources.

Response: An expanded study of aquifer connection and function that will help to predict vulnerability to 

future contamination events is presently underway.

Comment: It is noted on p. 4-113, that pollutants would be introduced into aquifers. This is not 

acceptable.

Response: The statement that is referred to — “It is likely that under all alternatives that have 

considerable and rapid increases in oil and gas development, many of the nonmarket values associated 

with BLM lands will decrease in value. For example, with the surface and subsurface disturbances 

associated with drilling wells, there may be erosion, deforestation, area closures, and introduction of 

water pollutants into aquifers. This would decrease the values associated with water quality, wildlife 

habitat, recreation, and scenic resources” — is a statement of risks associated with the development of the 

hydrocarbon resources in the area. All reasonable and practical efforts will be taken to prevent and avoid 

A27-498 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

these undesirable consequences, but they cannot be entirely eliminated. This statement acknowledges this 

fact. 

Comment: there is no scientifically plausible study that explains the underlying hydrology of the aquifers 

in the -- in this particular area that’s under study right now. So there's no way that we can determine 

whether the existing drilling, or any of these future additional wells, how they’re going to impact water 

quality that’s going to be used for human consumption and livestock production.

Response: The first aspects of a study to look at the geology and morphology of the aquifers in the area 

are underway. The production companies are gathering the available data. This study is associated with 

WDEQ, and the developments following the discovery of backflow waters in industrial water wells are 

not directly addressed in the RMP because it is a WDEQ issue. 

Comment: Unlike surface waters, which comprise only a small percentage of the Resource Area, ground 

waters exist under the entire region and are, to large extents, hydraulically connected throughout broad 

aquifers. As such, ground waters are more susceptible than surface waters to contamination from widely 

dispersed activities such as oil and gas drilling and hazardous material spills. Because the BLM has 

already authorized thousands of hydrocarbon wells to be drilled in the PRA - and because BLM is now 

proposing to allow thousands of new hydrocarbon wells to be drilled under the new RMP - impacts to 

ground water warrant very careful study.

Response: The qualities of the aquifers in the area are just beginning to be studied. At this point, all 

available data are being gathered but have not yet been fully analyzed. As a result, factors such as 

porosity, transmissivity connections between aquifers, or even the number and positions of aquifers have 

yet to be determined. Therefore, many of the questions asked in this letter regarding vulnerability, 

production, or interconnections of aquifers cannot be answered at this time. 

Comment: The DEIS largely ignores impacts to ground waters in the PRA. The DEIS’s entire 

description of potentially affected ground waters is only five paragraphs long and could fit on a single 

page. DEIS at 3-111 and 3-112. Moreover, the DEIS even suggests that ground water considerations are 

not important to the RMP decision: “This section [of the DEIS Affected Environment chapter] focuses 

primarily, on surface watersheds because these are the components of the hydrologic cycle most 

vulnerable to management choices. Groundwater has remained largely undeveloped in the planning area 

and is less likely to be affected by surface management decisions, although impacts may occur through oil 

and gas drilling activities.”

Response: The lack of knowledge about the groundwater conditions was the reason for focusing on 

surface water in this section.

Comment: It is also incorrect to suggest surface waters are more vulnerable than ground waters to 

management choices. Both are critically important, and both are highly vulnerable. Unlike surface waters, 

which are often flowing and thus naturally replaced over short time frames, ground waters are nearly 

static and are slow to recharge in this part of the country. Contaminants introduced to ground waters, 

however, can still spread over large distances through gradual migration and diffusion. This means 

pollutants introduced at one site may eventually render ground water several miles away unsuitable for 

consumption or agricultural use. And once ground waters are contaminated it is often impossible to fully 

decontaminate them.

Response: The text has been revised in the final EIS.

Pinedale RMP A27-499 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

Response: The qualities of the aquifers in the area are just beginning to be studied. At this point, all 

available data are being gathered but have not yet been fully analyzed. As a result, factors such as 

porosity, transmissivity connections between aquifers, or even the number and positions of aquifers have 

yet to be determined. Therefore, many of the questions asked in this letter regarding vulnerability, 

production, or interconnections of aquifers cannot be answered at this time.

Comment: The BLM should therefore produce an up-to-date discriminated wellhead map of the PRA for 

the public and decision-maker to review in the Final EIS. Where possible, the BLM should also, 

determine the depth of ground water wells and evaluate their sensitivity to drawdowns of the water table. 

The DEIS lacks any meaningful data on water well locations and depths in the PRA, and this omission 

must be corrected.

Comment: Given that the DEIS largely dismisses groundwater concerns, this document does not present 

any maps or illustrations to help readers understand the ground water environment in the PRA. Absent are 

maps of aquifer location (including depth to and thickness of usable ground water deposits), ground water 

quality, aquifer sensitivity, location of recharge areas, or aquifer recharge rates. The DEIS does not even 

present a map of existing and proposed ground water well locations in the PRA. This information is 

readily available and is essential for understanding where important ground waters occur and what risks 

would, be presented by the new RMP. Attached to these comments are maps available from the Wyoming 

State Water Plan [7] and the Spatial Data and Visualization Center [5]. These include maps of Wellhead 

locations recorded by the State Engineer’s Office (Figure 1 [7] ), Depth to Groundwater (Figure 2 [5]), 

Aquifer Sensitivity (Figure 3 [5]), and Aquifer Recharge Rates (Figure 4 [5]) in Sublette County. 

Although these maps were produced from data between 5 and 10 years old, they still provide a wealth of 

useful information for planning. For the new RMP EIS, the BLM can and should compile similar maps 

for the PRA using current data.1

Response: Given the speed of development and the size of the map reproduction, a well head map 

produced for the RMP would most likely be out of date and lacking accuracy on location at the time of 

publication.

Comment: The Depth to Groundwater map in Figure 2 shows much of the PRA has shallow aquifers (the 

lighter the shading on the map, the shallower the top of the water column). Shallow waters are more 

vulnerable to contamination from activities occurring on the surface, including produced water discharge 

and chemical spills. The DEIS does not present a map of water table depth for the PRA. 

Response: What little is known about the subsurface geology of the area suggests that much of the area’s 

geology is the result of fluvial deposits. Other portions of the area show more of a glacial influence. This 

combination often results in multiple discontinuous aquifers. This does not diminish the need to gain a 

more complete understanding of the aquifer system, but it does call into question the model of the system 

as being open and unconfined as presented in this assumption. A Management Situation Analysis (MSA) 

would be better suited than the RMP for dealing with the assumptions that there are multiple aquifers at 

different depths, that the resolution of the maps in the RMP would be limited, and that the information is 

available at a higher resolution from other sources. 

Comment: The DEIS (page 3-111) does acknowledge there are eight major aquifers in the PRA. 

However, it does not provide any additional descriptions or graphic information that would allow readers 

to understand where these aquifers occur.

Response: The lack of information about the groundwater situation is responsible for this.

A27-500 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

Comment: To offer a complete picture of the ground water resources in the PRA, the BLM should 

prepare a grid of stratigraphic maps (i.e., cross-sectional illustrations of the sediment column). The entire 

ground water resource in the PRA could be reasonably well mapped three-dimensionally by preparing 

such maps for E-W running lines of latitude spaced every 10 miles and N-S running lines of longitude 

spaced every 10 miles. Each stratigraphic map could show depth to the top of the water column along 

with applicable State water quality ratings for aquifers occurring at greater depths.2 Potentiometric maps 

are also needed to understand the ground water environment. I am requesting that these maps be prepared 

for the Final EIS and for any revised or supplemental Draft EIS.

Response: The geology of the PRA is a complex conglomeration of fluvial and glacial geology and 

would most likely take a more detailed study than is presented here. The process is underway to 

determine if this is true or not. Given the production schedule for the RMP, including this data would 

most likely be impractical. 

Comment: The Aquifer Sensitivity map attached in Figure 3 shows much, of the PRA contains “highly 

sensitive” aquifers (depicted in red). This rating was given to areas exhibiting “high water table; sandy 

soils, and high hydraulic conductivity rates associated with alluvium” [5]. This includes most of the 

northern and western regions of the Pinedale Anticline. Ground waters in these areas are highly 

vulnerable to contamination from surface activities and should therefore be subject to the most stringent 

protections. Areas depicted in yellow on the map reflect the locations where medium-high sensitivity 

aquifers exist. These areas are generally rated slightly lower than high sensitivity aquifers “because of an 

increasing depth-to-water, and lower permeabilities in both soils and vadose zones.” Id. Still, these areas 

are quite sensitive to contamination from surface activities and should therefore be subject to stringent 

protections. The DEIS never evaluates aquifer sensitivity and, instead, incorrectly treats all ground waters 

as if they were the same. 

Response: Surface aquifer sensitivity was not considered in the formation of the draft RMP. Thank you 

for bringing it to our attention. The practices outlined in the RMP provide protections for the most 

sensitive of areas, and thus are appropriate for all.

Comment: The Annual Recharge Rate map provided in Figure 4 shows the vast majority of lands in the 

PRA exhibit recharge rates of less than 1 inch per year. This information is crucial for understanding how 

quickly ground water levels would recover when the water table is lowered through developments, such 

as natural gas production. Ground waters also feed springs and seeps important to wildlife; even relatively 

small drawdowns of the water table can dry up these ecological important wetlands. Because activities 

contemplated under the new RMP will result in aquifer drawdowns, BLM should identify and map the 

locations of any ground-water dependent wetlands and disclose this information in the EIS. The DEIS 

does not do this. 

Response: The data have been considered in the preparation of the final EIS. The RMP is a summary 

document and as such does not contain maps with the needed resolution. Because all natural wetlands in 

this area are groundwater dependent to one extent or another, the wetland maps obtained from the 

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database http://www.fws.gov/nwi/ should be sufficient to the task. 

The complexity of the local geology prevents accurate statements of specific geologic connections at this 

scale. Because the RMP will not directly authorize any activities on the ground (such activities are dealt 

with on a project-specific basis), it is not possible to predict accurately the possible aquifer drawdowns. 

This analysis would be completed in site-specific NEPA analysis, such as for the Jonah and Pinedale 

Anticline gas fields.

Comment: There are Class I aquifers in many parts of the PRA, but the DEIS suggests they are limited to 

the margins, where little oil and gas drilling will occur. Again, graphical materials showing the locations 

Pinedale RMP A27-501 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

of the existing aquifers, discriminated by water quality class; are needed to understand the ground water 

resource and potential impacts to this resource. Figure 5 attached also shows Class I and Class II ground 

waters occur throughout the PRA [7].4

Response: The description of groundwater quality included in Section 3.15.2 of the DEIS is adequate for 

the RMP planning effort.

Comment: At the same time, the DEIS appears to downplay the poor quality of produced waters. In 

particular, the DEIS states “[g]roundwater produced in natural gas wells in the southeastern portion of the 

planning area, in the Jonah field area, varied in quality, but TDS averaged between 2,000 and 5,000 mg/L 

(BLM 2006). In these aquifers, untreated produced water is not suitable for domestic use, is only 

marginally suitable for agriculture, but is suitable for livestock use.” DEIS at 3-112.

Response: WDEQ determines the appropriate uses for groundwater, and TDS is but one of many factors 

that are considered.

Comment: The U.S. Forest Service recently published the following representative data for ground 

waters produced in the PRA. None of these produced waters in the Pinedale area (table shown) would be 

suitable even for livestock use, and at least one water sample (from the Jonah 1 well) considerably 

exceeds the salinity of ocean water. Based on these data, the BLM’s suggestion that produced waters in 

the PRA would be suitable for livestock appears to be incorrect. 

Response: WDEQ determines the appropriate uses for groundwater. Iron, sodium, chloride, and TDS are 

a few of the many factors that are considered. The variety of ground water quality within the PFO area 

precludes broad statements as to general uses for all waters.

Comment: The DEIS also fails to discuss other potentially problematic components of the affected 

ground water environment. This includes radioactive content including uranium oxides, radium and 

radon, existing hazardous chemical contaminants such as benzene, and biological organisms that may 

have been isolated from the surface environment for hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Response: WDEQ determines the appropriate uses for groundwater.

Comment: The BLM must fully describe the distributions and, contents of any ground water deposits 

that may be brought to the surface, drawn down, or contaminated by activities allowed under the new 

RMP.

Response: WDEQ determines the appropriate uses for groundwater.

Comment: Disclosing how many oil and gas wells may be drilled through aquifers is not the same thing 

as evaluating how ground waters would be impacted from the various activities associated with the 

drilling. Disclosing how many acres of land would be subject to vegetation management (e.g., logging) is 

not the same thing as quantifying the impacts that may result from these activities.

Response: The RMP is an overview document. Many factors outside the scope of the RMP document 

will affect the amount of actual activity that occurs on the ground. The RMP tries to provide direction for 

these activities but cannot predict the final total amount without setting specific upper and lower amounts 

of activity. As a result, the exact consequences of each alternative are difficult to predict. The impact 

analysis is appropriate for the scope of the draft EIS. Because the RMP will not authorize any on-theground activities, it is not possible to predict specific impacts of on-the-ground projects that have not yet 

been proposed.

A27-502 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

Comment: There are many ways ground waters and surface waters can be contaminated by BLMauthorized activities in the Pinedale Resource Area. The RMP DEIS does not discuss any possible 

contamination mechanisms, much less evaluate the potential impacts. The following are examples of 

some of the water contamination mechanisms I am aware of; there are surely others.

Response: The ongoing groundwater study associated with PAPA and the Jonah Field will help to answer 

these questions. At this time the data required for the analysis is not available.

Comment: The obvious impact from lowered water tables is reduced production from ground water wells 

used for domestic and agricultural purposes. These wells. are primarily in the alluvium and Wasatch 

aquifers. In some cases, ground water depletions will lower the water table below existing well bottoms, 

which means BLM-authorized activities could dry up private wells and/or require re-drilling wells to 

greater depths. This will have social and financial impacts on residents. It is my understanding at least 

two near-surface water wells in the Jonah field have gone dry since gas drilling started there. Even where 

ground water wells are not dried up from depression of the water table, there will be lower hydrostatic 

pressure on the remaining wells. This will reduce flow from ground water wells, which will also 

adversely impact ground water users. More energy will also be required to pump water to the surface 

from greater depths, which means greater financial costs to water users. In addition, when there is less 

ground water in an aquifer, contaminants introduced into the remaining ground waters will have higher 

concentrations. Higher concentrations of contaminants (including salinity, benzene, etc.) will present 

greater health risks to water users. The RMP DEIS does not address any of these impacts.

Response: The aquifer system in the Pinedale Field Office is complex. Efforts are made in the drilling 

and completion of hydrocarbon and industrial water wells to isolate the aquifers of domestic and shallow 

stock wells. Details of these actions are covered in the individual field development plans and EISs. 

Because the domestic and shallow stock wells are completed to shallow aquifers, they are more 

susceptible to yearly water availability and drought. The ongoing groundwater study associated with the 

Jonah and PAPA fields should provide some information when the data are analyzed. 

Comment: Lowered water tables will also adversely impact surface waters and wildlife. This is because a 

significant portion of ground water recharge in the PRA discharges to the surface through springs and 

directly to streams and rivers. See, e.g., [81 at 3-72. This surface discharge is a con-sequence of the 

relatively shallow depth to water throughout the PRA. See Figure 2 attached. As water tables are lowered 

throughout the PRA, due largely to natural gas development, some springs and wetlands will dry up, and 

there will also be less water flows in affected streams and rivers. These reductions in surface flows will 

not only harm resident wildlife, but as I will discuss later, they will also adversely impact endangered 

species and their habitats downstream, far from the PRA. The RMP DEIS does not address any of these 

problems. How many springs, intermittent streams and other wetlands in the PRA are currently fed by 

ground waters? How much river water (e.g., in the New Fork and Green Rivers) originates from discharge 

of ground waters in the PRA? How sensitive are these surface waters to ground water depletions? How 

much of this surface water influx would be eliminated by the projected draw downs in the water table 

under each RMP alternative? These are the types of questions the NEPA process was designed to answer, 

yet the RMP DEIS ignores them.

Response: The ongoing groundwater study associated with the Jonah and PAPA fields should provide 

some information when the data are analyzed.

Comment: The PAPA Draft SEIS (page 4-84) suggests near-surface ground waters drawn down by oil 

and gas development would rapidly recover within 10 years. This is clearly incorrect given the very low 

recharge rates in the PRA. See, e.g., Figure 4 attached. With an average recharge rate of less than 1 inch 

per year throughout most of the PRA - and with perhaps half of this recharge discharging to surface 

Pinedale RMP A27-503 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

waters rather than replenishing the aquifers ([8] at 3-72) - it will take decades and possibly centuries for 

ground water levels to recover from 10-30 foot drawdowns. This, in turn, means impacts to residents who 

depend on ground water - and impacts to wildlife, wetlands and other aquatic ecosystems - will continue 

long after the new RMP is itself revised 15-20 years from now.

Response: The ongoing groundwater study associated with the Jonah and PAPA fields should provide 

some information when the data are analyzed.

Comment: Extracting large quantities of ground water from the alluvium and Wasatch aquifers will also 

reduce the water carrying capacity of the sediments in those formations. Currently, water is filling the 

pore spaces and balancing hydrostatic pressure. When the water is removed, how-ever, the hydrostatic 

pressure will compact the sediments and permanently reduce porosity. As a result, as recharge gradually 

occurs in subsequent decades, the aquifers will no longer hold as much water. This impact will be 

exacerbated by all of the compacted roads and well pads that are being constructed throughout the gas 

fields where the water table draw downs are the most severe. The RMP DEIS also completely ignores this 

important issue.

Response: The State of Wyoming has primacy on this issue. BLM does not permit water wells or grant 

water rights.

Comment: Limit ground water use to sustainable rates so that withdrawal is balanced by recharge.

Response: Water is the purview of the State of Wyoming. BLM does not have authority to limit 

groundwater use.

Comment: Where ground water discharge feeds springs, ponds, intermittent streams, and other wetlands, near-surface ground water should not be removed in quantities that may reduce discharge to these 

surface waters. Where ground water discharges into rivers or streams, the RMP should require BLM to 

estimate reductions in surface water flows (i.e., depletions) associated with past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future ground water drawdowns from BLM-authorized activities. Water depletions should be 

fully mitigated as discussed below (surface water depletions). 

Response: Water is the purview of the State of Wyoming. BLM does not have authority to limit 

groundwater use.

Geology and Soils 

Comment: A major point is that the basic surficial geology is glacial till over bedrock formations such as 

the Lance and Green river formations. The porosity of glacial till allows for subsurface vertical and 

horizontal movement. Dr. Dennis Dahms of Iowa State University has published numerous articles on the 

surficial geology of the Pinedale and Wind River Area. I can supply you with an email from him 

regarding the potential for contamination in water courses associated with the potholes area proposed for 

ACEC status. The same general conditions exist throughout most of the surficial geology in the PRM area 

and the same types of affect on water quality would occur on a broader scale than just the potholes region. 

The topology from the Wind Rivers extends west beyond Highway 191 with similar terrain to the 

potholes area, which is recognized as deserving special management status.

Response: No specific area is proposed for special management status.

Comment: To address these sources of potential surface water contamination, I am requesting that BLM 

prepare accurate maps for the PRA showing (i) salinity content of soils, (ii) erosion potential of soils, and 

A27-504 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

(iii) any other soil conditions that relate to surface water quality (e.g., hydric soils). These maps should be 

included in the final EIS and any revised or supplemental draft EIS.

Response: Detailed soil surveys are presently underway in the PFO area. These soil surveys will make it 

possible for a more accurate focusing of erosion control efforts than provided for in previous analyses. 

Unfortunately, the data will not be available in time for publication of the RMP.

Comment: The proposed depth to water action trigger is also inappropriate. It would require corrective 

action when there is “Accelerated stream bank soil loss.” I suspect this trigger actually needs to be 

switched with the one for the monitoring item for soil erosion on stream banks and flood plains, which 

reads: “Water table is shrinking beyond average precipitation fluctuations”. Assuming the latter is 

actually the trigger that would be used to monitor depth to water, then it is appropriate. However, the 

BLM should specify what constitutes “average precipitation fluctuations” along with the criterion the 

agency will use to determine when a particular water table is “shrinking beyond average precipitation 

fluctuations.” Specifically, what threshold would have to be reached before corrective action would be 

taken? And what action would BLM take if depth to water was found to be increasing beyond that 

threshold?

Response: Table A11-1 has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: Porosity and Soil Compaction. The monitoring item for depth to water also includes 

monitoring of soil compaction, porosity, and permeability. These are excellent and necessary. 

Unfortunately, there are no trigger items specified for these conditions. BLM should determine baseline 

porosity in all aquifers used for domestic, agricultural and livestock uses, as well as the recharge areas for 

these aquifers. BLM should also take action to prevent further porosity losses if monitoring ever indicates 

porosity has declined by more than 10%, cumulatively (e.g., from average porosity of 20% to 18%). This 

may require prohibiting new road and well pad construction (directional drilling off-site may still be 

allowed) and prohibiting additional ground water removal (since in situ ground water helps maintain 

porosity by balancing hydrostatic pressure).

Response: Table A11-1 has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: Regarding the action triggers for soil erosion, the one proposed for upland areas would be 

when soil loss is “accelerated beyond natural levels.” This is ambiguous. What is the threshold erosion 

rate that would have be observed before corrective action would be taken? Would there be different 

thresholds for different slopes and soil types? Would there be different thresholds for different distances 

from surface waters? Without specifying the actual trigger criteria, BLM could allow substantial soil 

erosion and even irreversible slope damage before any corrective action is taken. Furthermore, what 

action would BLM take to correct this problem? Once a road, pipeline or well pad is constructed, it may 

be difficult to correct the resulting erosion. This is another reason why strong, measurable prescriptive 

standards are needed to restrict development on sensitive soils.

Response: Table A11-1 has been revised in the final EIS.

Riparian, Surface Water, Floodplain 

Comment: I would like to focus your attention to the Upper Green River 100 Year Floodplain map 3-14 

of the EIS and compare it to the enclosed “Wetlands and Flood Zones with 500 Foot Wetland Buffer 

Zones” map by FEMA dated 5-29-07 of the same area. This system is part of the Headwaters of the Green 

River. The map shows springs, creeks, potholes and riparian zones indicating a complex hydrology. This 

water runs into the Green River. Why do FEMA’s maps recognize so much more water resources than the 

Pinedale RMP A27-505 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

BLM’s? The EIS does not address the risks to the watershed and to the Green River (Classified as a #1 

Blue Ribbon River) caused by the Hydro-Carbon Industry.

Response: The FEMA map uses a broad brush approach to defining the 100-year floodplain. The 

wetlands and floodplain map is based on existing waters and a set distance from them. It does not 

consider the elevation of adjacent lands.

Comment: It is important for the Draft EIS to disclose to the public and other reviewers that different 

uses must be protected in the different waterbodies in the planning area. EPA recommends the Final EIS 

included a map of the surface waters and their respective classification under the Wyoming DEQ Surface 

Water Standards. For example, the Draft Supplemental EIS for the Pinedale Anticline noted that “all of 

the Green River, upstream of the confluence with the New Fork River is designated as Class I water under 

the Wyoming DEQ Surface Water Standards (WDEQ, 2001), meaning that they are “outstanding” waters 

that may not be degraded.” EPA further recommends that the Final EIS expand on how the management 

actions in the RMP (i.e. oil and gas development, grazing, vegetation management) will ensure the 

designated uses of the surface waters are not impaired and how those waters will be monitored. 

Response: A link to the website for the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality water quality 

standards has been included in Chapter 3 of the final EIS to provide access to current water classification 

information. In addition, information on Class I waters within the planning area has been included in the 

final EIS. 

Comment: The “Watershed and Water Quality” section of Chapter 3 of the DEIS does not even mention 

the State of Wyoming classifications of surface waters in the region. For instance, Fremont Lake and the 

segment of the Green, River from Bridger Wilderness Boundary down to the confluence with the New 

Fork have been designated Class 1 “Outstanding Waters” by the State [3]. Such surface waters “are those 

... in which no further water quality degradation by point source discharges ... will be allowed,” and 

“nonpoint source pollution must be controlled through best management practices.” Id. Clearly, in order 

to understand where pollution discharges must either be prohibited or highly regulated, the public and the 

decision-maker should be apprised of the locations of any Class 1 surface waters in or near the PRA.

Response: Information on Class 1 waters within the planning area has been incorporated into the final 

EIS. Fremont Lake is not included in the planning area and is therefore not described in Chapter 3 of the 

draft EIS or final EIS.

Comment: Many other surface waters in the PRA are classified as Class 2 (Fisheries and Drinking 

Water), Class 3 (Aquatic Life Other Than Fish) and Class 4 (Agriculture, Industry, Recreation and 

Wildlife). Yet the DEIS does not show or describe where these waters are or what water quality 

protections apply to them. This is another critical omission. 

Response: WDEQ determines the appropriate uses for water. The WGFD classifies water for wildlife and 

recreational use. These sources are referenced rather than quoted.

Comment: There is a terse discussion of water quality classifications presented in the “Wildlife and Fish 

section of Chapter 3. See DEIS at 3-130. However, there is no map provided, and. this information needs 

to be in the Watershed and Water Quality section where readers interested in surface waters are going to 

look for the information.

Response: The WDEQ determines the appropriate uses for water. The WGFD classifies water for 

wildlife and recreational use. These sources are referenced rather than quoted.

A27-506 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

Comment: I am requesting that the BLM prepare a map of the lands in and around the PRA showing 

surface waters by State classification. A color system should be used to discriminate surface waters of 

different classes. The Watershed and Water Quality section of the “Affected Environment” chapter in the 

Final EIS (and in any revised or supplemental Draft EIS) should also discuss what these classifications 

mean and what restrictions apply to them.

Response: A link to the website for the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality water quality 

standards has been included in Chapter 3 of the final EIS to provide access to current water classification 

information.

Comment: The RMP DEIS does present a discussion of the State trout fisheries classifications. RMP 

DEIS at 3-129. However, the fisheries classifications are not mentioned in the Watershed and Water 

Quality section of Chapter 3. In addition, the RMP DEIS does not include a map showing the State’s 

fisheries classifications in the PRA [10]. A copy of the State Trout Fisheries Classification Map for the 

Upper Green River Basin - as reproduced in the State Water Plan [7] is attached as Figure 7. The DEIS 

should graphically show the locations of Class 2 and Class 3 fisheries so readers can judge the risk of 

potential impacts to these waters.

Response: Fisheries information received from the WGFD is presented in the Wildlife and Fisheries 

section of the final EIS.

Comment: Another omission in the DEIS is a map showing the locations of all wetlands in the PRA. 

Map 3-11 in Volume 2 of the DEIS shows some wetland vegetation communities. However, this is not 

the same as a wetland map. In fact, Map 3-11 does not even show many of the major rivers and lakes in 

and around the PRA. The Green River in the vicinity of Daniel, for instance, is mostly depicted as 

“Agricultural/Urban” vegetation. Moreover, Map 3-11 is so coarse that many smaller wetlands are 

omitted. This includes springs, seeps, ponds and intermittent streams. The 100-Year Floodplain Map (3-

14) shows many streams and rivers throughout the PRA, as well as some lakes and ponds, but again it is 

too coarse to show all potentially affected wetlands and water bodies.

Response: The maps included in the draft EIS include the best available data and are shown at a scale 

that allows for appropriate analysis of resources. The (USFWS) NWI map (http://www.fws.gov/nwi/) 

may not be usable at the RMP map scale.

Comment: I am requesting that BLM produce a refined map (or perhaps several maps collectively 

covering the entire PRA) to display the locations of all known wet-lands. It would be most helpful if 

different types of wetlands were displayed in different colors, such as blue for lakes and ponds, green for 

permanent rivers and streams, orange for intermittent streams and seasonal wetlands (e.g., high-water 

flooded zones, oxbows) and red for springs and seeps. To understand how rivers and streams may be 

impacted by depletions or discharges (e.g., from produced water discharge), it would also be helpful if 

BLM produced a separate map to discriminate flowing surface waters by flow rate.

Response: The maps included in the draft EIS include the best available data and are shown at a scale 

that allows for appropriate analysis of resources. The USFWS NWI map (http://www.fws.gov/nwi/) may 

not be usable at the RMP map scale.

Comment: A related aspect of the surface water environment is floodplains. Although floodplains are dry 

much of the time, they do become surface water areas during wet periods. The DEIS 100-Year Floodplain 

Map (3-14) is useful but is too coarse to understand how these sensitive areas have been impacted from 

past development (e.g., existing roads, well pads and pipelines) and could be further impacted from 

contemplated development under the new RMP. With uncertainties in how the PRA will be affected by 

Pinedale RMP A27-507 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

climate change, I believe it would be prudent to map the 500-year and 1,000-year floodplains for the 

RMP EIS. A single map could use different colors or gray shading to depict the 100-year, 500-year and 

1,000-year floodplains.

Response: The 100-year floodplain map is based on FEMA and HUD data. There are no restrictions set 

forth in the RMP with regard to the 500- or 1,000-year floodplains, both of which have time frames that 

far exceed the expected life of the document. 

Comment: For these reasons I am asking the BLM to expand the CIAA for Watersheds and Water 

Quality to include (1) the entire watersheds of the PRA (up to any applicable divide), and (2) and all 

surface waters outside those watersheds and across applicable divides (e.g., Lander side of the Winds) - 

which may be adversely impacted by air pollutants emitted from activities occurring on BLM lands 

within the PRA.

Response: Potential impacts to alpine lakes from acid deposition are included in the Air Quality 

cumulative impact analysis area (CIAA) area (Map 4-5) and discussion in Section 4.19.3. 

Comment: The water quality section in Chapter 4 of the RMP DEIS does not attempt to estimate 

degradation of surface waters from sediment loading, such as from erosion of soils at well pads, dirt roads 

and pipeline corridors.

Response: Limited amounts of this type of analysis were undertaken for the PAPA and Jonah Field but 

were not summarized for the RMP because the output of the predictive models is based on contributing 

areas, soil, and vegetation which changes dramatically outside the study areas and thus introduces a great 

deal of potential error.

Comment: No baseline data are provided for the natural (background) sediment loading of surface waters 

such as the New Fork and Green Rivers.

Response: Stream sediment data could be obtained from USGS stream gauging stations, but as to how 

much of this might be natural background sediment and how much is human caused or human caused on 

BLM lands would be difficult if not impossible to determine. 

Comment: No data are provided on the current sediment loading from existing roads, well pads, pipeline 

corridors, livestock grazing, ORV use, coal-bed natural gas water discharges, etc.

Response: This data might be modeled, but the number and degree of assumptions (existing surface 

disturbance, interconnections of flow paths, soil properties, etc.) that would need to be made make this 

impractical.

Comment: No data are provided to estimate potential additional sediment loading impacts caused by 

future increases in such activities under the RMP and beyond. Without this information, it is impossible 

for readers and the decision-maker to determine the extent to which surface waters in and downstream 

from the PRA would be adversely impacted in a cumulative sense.

Response: Given the conditions presented in the previous two comments, adding the additional factor of 

projected disturbance to the mix requires even greater speculation.

Comment: Even if the DEIS’s WEPP modeling were defensible and yielded accurate predictions, the 

DEIS does not use those data to estimate impacts to surface water quality. Not all eroded soils would end 

up in surface waters. The BLM must attempt to validate the WEPP model predictions, disclose the 

A27-508 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

assumptions and methodologies for public review, correct any identified. problems with the model, and 

then use the results to predict impacts to surface waters. The cumulative impacts analysis must include all 

sources of soil erosion and surface water sediment loading, including erosion from well pads; roads (for 

any purpose), pipelines, facilities, ORV use, livestock, vegetation management (e.g., logging and fire), 

and other activities in the region.

Response: If you have a better soil erosion prediction model and the data to populate it, we would be 

interested in looking at it. The data regarding the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) are available 

for public review but not in the RMP. 

Comment: The DEIS also fails to disclose cumulative impacts associated with ground and surface water 

depletions. In particular, there is no discussion of how much surface water would flow through the PRA 

without human extraction of water (i.e., the natural baseline condition), how much surface water is 

currently being removed for human uses (e.g., irrigation), or how much surface water may be removed 

under each alternative. This information is available in the State Water Plan [7] and other sources. Nor 

does the DEIS disclose how much ground water is currently being extracted from aquifers in the PRA or 

how much additional ground water would likely be extracted under each alternative RMP. Without this 

information it is impossible to understand how water quantities will be cumulatively affected under the 

new RMP.

Response: Water diversions are the responsibility of the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office. As many of 

these diversions are to private lands and used at the discretion of those who hold the water right, it is out 

of the scope of this document

Comment: Although the RMP DEIS (page 4-168) acknowledges that surface waters at higher elevations 

are susceptible to water quality changes due to deposition of air pollutants, the DEIS never actually 

analyzes the cumulative impacts that would result from this pollution. There are no baseline data for 

natural (i.e., pre-industrialization) and current water quality conditions in surface waters that would be 

cumulatively impacted by air pollutant deposition. There are no data presented on the natural levels of 

depositional air pollutant concentrations. There are no data given for the current concentrations of 

depositional air pollutants, such as generated by existing oil and gas wells in the region, from or coal-fired 

power plants in the region, or from motor vehicle use upwind (e.g., Salt Lake City region) from the PRA.

Response: Potential impacts to alpine lakes from acid deposition are included in the Air Quality CIAA 

area (Map 4-5) and discussion in Section 4.19.3.

Comment: Furthermore, the Watersheds and Water Quality CIAA completely excludes numerous alpine 

lakes in the Wind River Mountains that would experience water quality declines due to acid deposition 

from air pollutants released on BLM lands in the PRA. Indeed, the RMP DEIS acknowledges that 

“alterations in water quality resulting from atmospheric depositions have less of an effect at the lower 

elevations than in the mountainous regions.” DEIS at 4-168. The Wind River Mountains generally lie 

downwind (based on prevailing wind patterns) from the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline fields. It actually 

appears the CIAA for the water impacts analysis was deliberately drawn to exclude the alpine lakes, even 

though they are among the most sensitive waters in the vicinity to acid deposition.

Response: Potential impacts to alpine lakes from acid deposition are included in the Air Quality CIAA 

area (Map 4-5) and discussion in Section 4.19.3.

Comment: PAGE: G-18 - G-19 CHANGE: PROPER FUNCTIONING CONDITION (PFC). A riparianwetland area inventory and monitoring tool used to determine whether: [is considered to be in proper 

functioning condition when](STRIKEOUT) adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is 

Pinedale RMP A27-509 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

present to dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflow, thereby reducing erosion and 

improving water quality; to filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; to improve 

flood-water retention and ground-water recharge; to develop root masses that stabilize streambanks 

against cutting action; to develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and 

the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary to fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other 

uses; and to support greater biodiversity. The functioning condition of riparianwetland areas is a result of 

interaction among geology, soil, water, and vegetation.[ (Prichard, et al. 1998). There are two categories 

of wetlands. Lentic areas are created by a stable water table such as playas, fens, areas around lakes, 

marshes, etc., and lotic areas are in riverine environments.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Last part of 

definition not included BLM Technical Reference 1737-9 PFC terminology, is out of place and should be 

moved to Wetland definition in glossary. Definition should also clarify that since the 1997 adoption of the 

Wyoming Healthy Rangeland Standards, PFC is an element of the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health for 

watersheds but only as a qualitative assessment (monitoring) tool used to characterize the resource 

conditions so that the status can be evaluated relative to land health standards. BLM Manual H-4180, I-6, 

III8, III- 10 (2001); IM WY 98-031 (1998). Specifically, PFC is one several suggested monitoring 

methods appropriate for gathering data used to evaluate indicators for Wyoming’s riparian and wetland 

vegetation standard identified in the Rangeland Health Standards. Rangeland Monitoring Protocol, IM 

WY-2001-054, Attachment 1 (2001). PFC, therefore, is an inventory and monitoring tool; it is no longer a 

standard or management objective. Attachment 4 (management objectives relate to resource attributes 

such as indicators for rangeland health).

Response: The definition for Proper Functioning Condition is directly from BLM Technical Reference 

1727-15 (1998) and cannot be modified to read as something else.

Comment: The RMP DEIS also fails to address other surface water depletions in the PRA. These include 

evaporation and seepage losses from ponds (e.g., stock ponds and CCC ponds), impoundments, irrigation 

ditches and reservoirs scattered around the Resource Area. Additional depletions occur from 

evapotranspiration by cottonwood trees and other vegetation growing along the edges of these unnatural 

water bodies. Some of these water uses are authorized by parties other than the BLM. Nonetheless, BLM 

is required to evaluate the resulting surface water depletions in the cumulative impacts analysis. 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1508.7.

Response: It is not necessary for the RMP EIS to present a compendium of all scientific knowledge. The 

EIS appropriately analyzes water depletions that can be reasonably expected to occur.

Comment: The ecological impacts of surface water depletions are also very problematic. While people 

can move out of areas when there is not enough water to go around, the native species that inhabit rivers 

and streams in the region cannot. Depletions of surface waters cause reduced flows which directly 

eliminates aquatic habitat. Depletions also indirectly affect rivers and streams by causing increased water 

temperatures, reduced dissolved oxygen, increased salinity and sedimentation effects, reduced sand bar 

formation, siltation of gravels and bottom vegetation, stagnation of backwaters, and other adverse 

impacts. The RMP DEIS does not evaluate the direct or indirect impacts of surface water depletions that 

would result from BLM authorized activities in the PRA. Nor does the DEIS evaluate the cumulative 

water depletions from BLM authorized activities and all other past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions in the region. In, fact, the DEIS does not even estimate the surface water depletions that 

would result from BLM activities. The Final EIS (and any revised or supplemental draft EIS) must correct 

these omissions. As I will now discuss, because the surface water depletions are endangering numerous 

aquatic species, the BLM must also take aggressive action to avoid and eliminate water depletions 

wherever possible.

A27-510 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

Response: The RMP does not authorize specific activities that deplete water from the Colorado River 

system. Water depletions can have effects as you have stated. Water rights and water use are under the 

jurisdiction of the State of Wyoming. Proponents that anticipate the use of water in a project will be 

required to determine the amount of water that will be needed and, if it is a federal action, that amount 

would need to go through formal consultation with the USFWS for effects to endangered fish species 

downstream from Wyoming. If water used is from municipal sources or is determined not to be connected 

to surface flows in the Colorado River system, then consultation is not needed. Because of the variety of 

ways water can be used, its source, the timing of use, etc., it is impossible to estimate accurately the total 

amount that all project proponents will use in the future at the land use plan stage. These amounts will be 

determined at the site-specific ‘activity’ plan stage through an EA or EIS and formally consulted on at 

that time. BLM would be responsible for any mitigation for projects it proposes that would deplete water 

(e.g., rangeland water developments, etc.) and other project proponents (e.g., oil and gas companies) 

would be responsible for their depletion mitigation. In general, however, impacts from water depletions 

could be discussed in the Biological Assessment and final EIS.

Comment: Due to the existing severely depleted state of the Colorado and Green Rivers, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) has concluded that very small additional depletions - even if just a few acrefeet - will jeopardize the continued existence of the four endangered fish species. See, e.g., [49]. The 

endangered fish are the bonytail (Gila elegans), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanns), Colorado 

pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), and humpback chub (Gild cypha). At least two of these species are 

critically endangered. Indeed, the FWS has reported “Razorback suckers are in imminent danger of 

extirpation in the wild” (see [49] at 10), and the recovery goal for the bonytail is to “prevent immediate 

extinction.” See, e.g., [50] at 205. The RMP DEIS does not address water depletion impacts on these 

endangered species. In fact, as far as I can tell, the BLM has not even initiated Section 7 consultation with 

the FWS over water depletion impacts associated with the revised RMP.

Response: The RMP does not authorize specific activities that deplete water from the Colorado River 

system. Water depletions can have effects as you have stated. Water rights and water use are under the 

jurisdiction of the State of Wyoming. Proponents that anticipate the use of water in a project will be 

required to determine the amount of water that will be needed and, if it is a federal action, that amount 

would need to go through formal consultation with the USFWS for effects to endangered fish species 

downstream from Wyoming. If water used is from municipal sources or is determined not to be connected 

to surface flows in the Colorado River system, then consultation is not needed. Because of the variety of 

ways water can be used, its source, the timing of use, etc., it is impossible to estimate accurately the total 

amount that all project proponents will use in the future at the land use plan stage. These amounts will be 

determined at the site-specific ‘activity’ plan stage through an EA or EIS and formally consulted on at 

that time. BLM would be responsible for any mitigation for projects that it proposes that would deplete 

water (e.g., rangeland water developments, etc.) and other project proponents (e.g., oil and gas 

companies) would be responsible for their depletion mitigation. In general, however, impacts from water 

depletions could be discussed in the Biological Assessment and final EIS.

Comment: In particular, I am asking the BLM to determine. the following water depletions using best 

available data or - where the cost of obtaining this data can be shown to be truly exorbitant - to estimate 

the depletions based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific 

community as per 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b) (4): • surface water withdrawals for BLM authorized activities 

in the Upper Green River Basin (e.g., water removed from municipal surface water supplies, streams and 

irrigation ditches for dust suppression, cement, and drilling, completion and stimulation fluids)18 

• surface water withdrawals by companies conducting activities in response to BLM authorizations 

in the Upper Green River Basin (e.g., washing company vehicles used in the gas fields, cleaning 

facilities and other equipment, etc.)19 

Pinedale RMP A27-511 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

• surface water depletions associated with water use by people who move to the region to fill jobs 

created by BLM authorized activities in the Upper Green River Basin (including drilling and 

production jobs)20 

• evaporation, seepage and evapotranspiration losses associated with reservoirs, constructed ponds, 

impoundments, gravel pits and quarries that expose ground water, and irrigation ditches on BLM 

and other federal lands in the Upper Green River Basin 

• direct surface .water withdrawals for BLM office and administrative uses- in the Upper Green 

River Basin (including BLM vehicle washing and lawn watering) along with surface water use 

from people employed by BLM in the Upper Green River Basin.22 

• direct surface water withdrawals for BLM and U.S. Forest Service fire fighting efforts in the 

Upper Green River Basin23 

• surface water depletions from drawing down the ground water table in the PR.A. from 

conventional natural gas, oil and CBNG development.

Response: The RMP does not authorize specific activities that deplete water from the Colorado River 

system. Water depletions can have effects as you have stated. Water rights and water use are under the 

jurisdiction of the State of Wyoming. Proponents that anticipate the use of water in a project will be 

required to determine the amount of water that will be needed and, if it is a federal action, that amount 

would need to go through formal consultation with the USFWS for effects to endangered fish species 

downstream from Wyoming. If water used is from municipal sources or is determined not to be connected 

to surface flows in the Colorado River system, then consultation is not needed. Because of the variety of 

ways water can be used, its source, the timing of use, etc., it is impossible to estimate accurately the total 

amount that all project proponents will use in the future at the Land Use Plan stage. These amounts will 

be determined at the site-specific ‘activity’ plan stage through an EA or EIS and formally consulted on at 

that time. BLM would be responsible for any mitigation for projects that it proposes that would deplete 

water (e.g., rangeland water developments, etc.) and other project proponents (e.g., oil and gas 

companies) would be responsible for their depletion mitigation. In general, however, impacts from water 

depletions could be discussed in the Biological Assessment and final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-8 CHANGE: EPHEMERAL SURFACE WATERS – refers to streams, 

[lakes,](STRIKEOUT) or other surface water bodies, which have open water only during or immediately 

after periods of rainfall or snowmelt. EXPLANATION: Given the resource area’s semi-arid climate, 

rainfall and snowmelt do not produce ephemeral lakes. See Wyoming Department of Water Quality, 

Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Section 2(a)(xiii) (only recognizing and defining ephemeral 

streams). Unlikely occurrence would fall within term “other surface water bodies.”

Response: Playas occur in the planning area. This statement will remain as is.

Comment: PAGE: G-10 CHANGE: IDENTIFIED 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAINS – Those areas 

delineated by the [Army Corps of Engineers](STRIKEOUT) Federal Emergency Management Agency 

for legal 100-year floodplain delineation. EXPLANATION: The Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, working with local governments, sets the 100-year floodplain boundaries through flood 

insurance rate studies. If there are identified 100-year flood plains in the resource area (regulatory 

designation for area with 1 percent chance of flood occurrence in any given year), then the plan would 

need to address impacts. Executive Order 11988, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (1977).

Response: The definition has been revised in the final EIS.

A27-512 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

Comment: PAGE: G-11 CHANGE: INTERMITTENT SURFACE WATERS - Refers to streams, 

[lakes,](STRIKEOUT) or other surface water bodies that have open water during a portion of the year, [or 

during particularly wet years they may have open water throughout the year. . .](STRIKEOUT) 

EXPLANATION: Given the resource area’s semi-arid climate, there are no intermittent lakes. See 

Wyoming Department of Water Quality, Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Section 2(a)(xxiv) (only 

recognizing and defining intermittent streams). Unlikely occurrence would fall within term “other surface 

water bodies.” In addition, in arid and semi-arid climates, an intermittent stream does not maintain a 

perennial “open water” flow, although permanent pools of standing water may be present at points along 

the stream or other surface water body. Discussion Paper: Addressing Water Quality Standards Issues 

Regarding Effluent Dependent and Effluent Dominated Waters App. A. (2003).

Response: BLM believes the statement is appropriate. This statement will not be changed in the final 

EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 4-189 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE [Since any impact 

on natural water resources is also an impact on fisheries, impacts to fisheries can be inferred from Section 

4.15, which discusses impacts on riparian areas and water quality.](STRIKEOUT) Four endangered 

species outside of Wyoming are affected adversely by water depletions within the planning area due to 

changes in water quantity, timing, and flow. See the biological assessment that meets the requirements for 

ESA Section 7 consultation. EXPLANATION: Possible impacts on water is not a depletion.

Response: These statements are accurate as written and no change is needed.

Comment: PAGE: 4-189 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [The health of 

fisheries within the planning area is directly related to the overall health and functional capabilities of 

riparian resources, which in turn are a reflection of watershed health.](STRIKEOUT) Any activities that 

affect the ecological condition of the watershed and its vegetative cover may [would 

directly](STRIKEOUT) affect the aquatic environment. Any substantial disturbance to soils or changes in 

vegetative cover may affect [would have an effect on](STRIKEOUT) watershed health and water quality, 

which in turn may affect [and would therefore have an effect on](STRIKEOUT) associated fisheries. The 

degree of impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of disturbances would be influenced by 

location within the watershed, time and degree of disturbance, existing vegetation, and precipitation. 

Water quality and watershed management actions designed to achieve standards as measured by PFC in 

riparian areas would improve fish habitat in areas not currently at PFC. EXPLANATION: Overstates the 

relationship and is inaccurate as written.

Response: The statement is accurate as originally written except for possibly changing “would” to “may” 

in some instances. These impacts could be beneficial or adverse.

Comment: PAGE: 4-189 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Surface 

disturbances near streams and watercourses may increase [would result in](STRIKEOUT) accelerated 

erosion and runoff. When significant, it will increase [increasing](STRIKEOUT) stream flow and 

sediment and nutrient loads to local channels. Sedimentation of a given channel could impact fisheries by 

reducing habitat complexity, resulting in a lower diversity of prey organisms. Increased turbidity would 

also result from increased sediment input, decreasing light penetration and inhibiting visual predation by 

fish. [Surface disturbance near streams that results in substantial removal of riparian vegetation could 

increase current velocity, putting additional strain on fish and reducing nutrient cycling. In addition to 

increased sediment input, stream bank disturbance could impact fisheries by creating bank instability, 

which could alter flow and destroy pool-riffle formations necessary for fish survival. Increased nutrient 

loading of streams could also impact fisheries by increasing primary production above natural levels, 

Pinedale RMP A27-513 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

which would degrade habitat and decrease oxygen levels.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: As an 

impact for RMP alternatives, cannot assume BMPs not used.

Response: The first change is acceptable and clarifies the meaning. The rest of the paragraph is 

appropriate as originally written and will remain unchanged because it is conditionally qualified.

Comment: PAGE: 3.93, SECTION: 3.13.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise Map 3-11 to conform 

to revised definition of wetlands. EXPLANATION: Following two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, 

the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency revised its wetlands guidelines to 

exclude those areas lacking a significant nexus to interstate water. Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. 

United States (June 5, 2007).

Response: The isolated wetlands that are the subject of these changes located within the PFO are too 

small to be represented on the maps within the RMP.

Comment: PAGE: 3-111, SECTION: 3.15.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise map and discussion 

of flood plains to identify those on public land. Revise sentence to read as follows: The status of the 

functioning condition of riparian vegetation along the public land segments of major waterways was 

documented using the PFC method. EXPLANATION: Map 3-14 displays the flood plain without regard 

to public or private land. This suggests the acreage total is not just public land.

Response: The acreage total given is for BLM-administered public lands. No change is determined to be 

necessary.

Comment: PAGE: 4-166, SECTION: 4.15.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Degradation of 

stream channel and land health conditions can be quite rapid. Recovery although faster in riparian areas 

than uplands is often a much slower process. EXPLANATION: Recovery along riparian areas is rapid 

compared to uplands.

Response: The statement made in the “explanation” is not always true and not germane to this document. 

Comment: PAGE:2-141 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Surface disturbing and construction 

activities (for example, mineral exploration and development activities, pipelines, power lines, roads, 

recreation sites, fences, wells) that could adversely impact water quality, wetlands, or riparian habitat 

would avoid the area within 500 feet of or on 100-year floodplains, wetlands, or perennial streams, and 

within 100 feet of the edge of the inner gorge of intermittent and large ephemeral drainages. Proposals for 

linear crossings and other projects in these areas would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

EXPLANATION: As was true for #131, the scope of the restrictions exceed authority. The purpose of 

most range improvements “impact” riparian habitat with the objective of improving it. As written, these 

projects would be precluded. The limits on ephemeral drainage projects lack any basis in the law. They 

are not regulated under clean water act. It makes more sense to regulate intensively to meet objectives 

rather than prohibit.

Response: This is the same language as present in the Green River RMP and is being placed in the 

Kemmerer RMP. It has not precluded range projects in the Rock Springs Field Office. Ephemeral 

drainages may not be regulated under the Clean Water Act under all circumstances. Maintaining land 

health and function is the responsibility of BLM. The 500-foot from the edge of riparian areas and 100-

foot from inner gorge are standard practices in the adjacent field offices of Kemmerer and Rock Springs.

Comment: PAGE:2-141 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete. [f. Where threats to Class I 

waters are identified from federal lands or management actions, or approved public land uses, BMPs that 

A27-514 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

address the threat would be implemented on all contributing federal lands.](strikeout) EXPLANATION: 

Delete. There are no Class 1 waters in Wyoming. See Green River Basin Water Plan (2001).

Response: Class 1 waters are defined by the state water quality regulations as those in which no further 

water quality degradation by point source discharges other than from dams will be allowed. The main 

stem of the Green River, including the Green River Lakes from the mouth of the New Fork River 

upstream to the wilderness boundary, Fremont Lake and adjacent wetlands are Class I waters based on 

WDEQ documents. The figure (2-4) in the Green River Basin Water Plan from the Wyoming Water 

Development Commission is from Wyoming Game and Fish trout stream analysis. It uses the same 

classification names but reflects different data.

Comment: 2-139, Alternative 4, Objective 2 Actions: Given that the DEIS indicates all management 

direction would be discretionary, there is no assurance any of this direction would be followed. Action (d) 

allows the BLM to “maintain” degraded riparian areas in a degraded state. In addition, there is no 

direction for important range-related issues such as placement of salt licks, regulating livestock 

congregtaion to protect water quality (e.g., coliforms, nitrates) and stream banks.

Response: Action d on page 2-139 is a visual standard for VRM Class III. This standard does not relate 

to riparian area function.

Comment: PAGE:2-139 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Objective 1 Collaborate 

with the state to achieve the uses and numerical standards specified by the WDEQ, [reduce the number of 

streams listed as impaired, and](strikeout) to prevent listing of [additional](strikeout) streams as impaired 

under the Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). EXPLANATION: None of the streams in the planning area is 

classified as impaired. RMP reflects erroneous information to the extent that it implies that some streams 

are impaired.

Response: The objective has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE:2-140 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:b. The 100-year floodplains, and 

wetlands, [and riparian areas](strikeout) would be avoidance areas for closed to new permanent facilities 

(for example, storage tanks, structures, pits). Proposals for linear crossings in these areas would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. Rights-of way necessary to divert water and develop water would be 

issued. EXPLANATION: RMP illegally limits development of water rights. The Executive Order does 

not prohibit such construction and BLM cannot lawfully deny access or right-of-way necessary to develop 

water. 

Response: This statement does not affect water rights.

Comment: PAGE:2-140 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: c. Surface disturbing and 

construction activities (for example, mineral exploration and development activities, pipelines, power 

lines, roads, recreation sites, fences, wells) that could adversely impact water quality, wetlands, or 

riparian habitat would avoid the area within 500 feet of or on 100-year floodplains, wetlands, or perennial 

streams, and within 100 feet of the edge of the inner gorge of intermittent and large ephemeral drainages. 

Proposals for linear crossings in these areas would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

EXPLANATION: The avoidance criteria are too broad both in terms of size and activities to be limited. 

As written no range improvements to protect or improve riparian habitat would be allowed. It would also 

preclude diversion of water rights. 

Pinedale RMP A27-515 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

Response: This is the same language as present in the Green River RMP and is being placed in the 

Kemmerer RMP. It has not precluded range projects in the Rock Springs Field Office. The language 

provides for linear projects and would not preclude diversion of water rights.

Comment: PAGE:2-140 SECTION:2.4 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: b. The 100-year floodplains, 

wetlands, and riparian areas would be closed to new permanent facilities (for example, storage tanks, 

structures, pits) except those designed and implemented to enhance wetland or riparian area condition or 

function, necessary to divert water, or related to rangeland or vegetation improvement project. Proposals 

for linear crossings in these areas would be considered on a case-by-case basis. EXPLANATION: Most 

of the flood plains and wetlands are fee simple and BLM has no jurisdiction. The restriction, while said to 

be based on Executive Orders 11988, 11990, imposes restrictions not required by either the order or the 

rules. As written, it prohibits fences, pumps and pipelines, all of which are needed by most livestock 

operations. It would also interfere with rights-of-way necessary to make use of water rights. In many 

cases, there is no other alternative.

Response: Just because a project would be implemented for livestock grazing management does not 

mean it belongs in a floodplain. The language is appropriate as presented in the draft EIS. For most range 

projects, it should not be difficult to show how the project would help to enhance riparian condition or 

function.

Comment: Even though water is arguably the most important and vulnerable resource in the region - and 

should there-fore have been one of the most thoroughly analyzed and detailed topics of discussion in the 

DEIS - water-related concerns were given only superficial treatment. Of particular concern, the DEIS 

contains no actual analysis of potential impacts to ground or surface waters. And the management 

direction proposed in the RMP DEIS for “protecting” ground and surface waters is vague, discretionary, 

incomplete and will not actually protect these waters. 

Response: Water quality was not raised as a primary planning issue during the planning process. In 

addition, regulation of water is the authority of WDEQ, not BLM.

Comment: PAGE: 4-168, SECTION: 4.15.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Forestry practices 

that increase snow accumulation and alter forest floor composition could change the duration and timing 

of stream flow, which could potentially affect water quality and quantity. This could improve the overall 

watershed yield, but could also cause undesirable alterations to stream channels and riparian areas, such 

as downcutting, widening, or other types of channel degradation. Stream channel scouring can benefit 

other species and improve water flows. Forest removal could also affect the nutrient balance in a 

watershed by increasing nitrates, carbon, and phosphorus to streams following [logging deforestation] 

(STRIKEOUT). Catastrophic wildfires would lead to deforestation and the [The] (STRIKEOUT) addition 

of these nutrients can cause eutrophication of waters. This would be a minor impact. EXPLANATION: 

EIS overstates impacts. Proper logging is not “deforestation.” Increased water flows can benefit stream 

channels as well.

Comment: The RMP should prohibit activities that pose risk of increasing salinity in tributaries of the 

Colorado River. This includes disturbance of saline soils, discharge of produced waters with TDS higher 

than native stream water, and spraying of high-TDS produced waters on surfaces where storm runoff and 

snow melt will carry accumulated salts into surface waters.

Response: Water is the purview of the State of Wyoming.

A27-516 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

Water Supply, Depletion 

Comment: 4. Other planning documents for leasing options imply water resources will be available and 

that annual recharge flow rates will be adequate to maintain water demands for resources such as 

agriculture and fisheries. These assumptions need to be verified by scientifically justifiable data of trends 

over years.

Response: No other planning document will make the leasing decisions for the Pinedale RMP planning 

area.

Comment: • Water depletions are also not adequately considered in the RMP DEIS. Impacts of 

depletions on drinking water wells are of special significance. Impacts of draw downs of water tables are 

not addressed.

Response: Water depletions are covered in the field development documents and are also the jurisdiction 

of the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office.

Comment: DEIS at 3-108. With thousands of ground water wells scattered throughout the PRA it is 

incorrect for BLM to suggest ground water resources are “largely undeveloped.” The Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has reportedly expressed concern that, with in-creasing 

development throughout the region, near-surface aquifers may not be adequate to meet demand in 50 

years, and waters in deeper aquifers will therefore become increasingly important [6]. The DEIS ignores 

future demands for ground water, even though near-term contamination can render ground waters 

unusable long after the next RMP expires.

Response: The text has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: Beyond contamination of ground and surface waters, these resources can also be adversely 

impacted by depletions. Because the PRA is an arid environment, even relatively small depletions can 

have significant consequences. The DEIS largely ignores depletions and associated impacts. As I 

discussed previously, there will be a huge amount of produced water taken out of the ground in the 

Pinedale Resource Area when the new RMP is implemented. By 2015, some-where between 25 and 40 

million barrels of produced water - 3,000 to 4,500 acre feet - will be extracted each year [32]. This is just 

produced water extracted from conventional gas wells in the PAPA and Jonah fields. Additional produced 

water. will be extracted through other oil and gas development, including. CBNG. Over the life. of the 

new RMP, it is likely more than 300 million barrels - over 12 billion gallons - of produced water will be 

extracted from aquifers. This is in the neighborhood of 40,000 acre-feet. On top- of this, vast amounts of 

near-surface ground waters will be extracted, using conventional water wells, for oil and gas field 

development, such as making cement and watering roads for dust control. This water will be taken from 

the alluvium and Wasatch aquifers. The ground water depletions - associated with near-surface water 

depletions and produced water extraction from deeper aquifers. - will have adverse impacts.

Response: Depletions are dealt with by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. BLM complies with its 

regulations.

Comment: I estimate these losses are collectively resulting in over 10,000 acre-feet of depletions each 

year, and there are other losses not listed here. For example, creating openings in a forest canopy can 

allow for increased wind scour of the snow pack and thereby reduce water yield during snow melt. See, 

e.g., [51] at 34. The RMP DEIS does not provide sufficient information about proposed logging and 

vegetation management techniques to allow estimation of the possible water depletions that could result 

from those activities. I believe constructing roads and well pads in sagebrush and woodland habitats can 

also lead to increased wind scour and thereby cause greater water depletions. The BLM should make an 

Pinedale RMP A27-517 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

aggressive good faith effort identify and quantify any other sources of water depletions on BLM lands in 

the Colorado River Basin.

Response: The RMP does not authorize specific activities that deplete water from the Colorado River 

system. Water depletions can have effects as you have stated. Water rights and water use are under the 

jurisdiction of the State of Wyoming. Proponents that anticipate the use of water in a project will be 

required to determine the amount of water that will be needed and, if it is a federal action, that amount 

would need to go through formal consultation with the USFWS for effects to endangered fish species 

downstream from Wyoming. If water used is from municipal sources or is determined not to be connected 

to surface flows in the Colorado River system, then consultation is not needed. Because of the variety of 

ways water can be used, its source, the timing of use, etc., it is impossible to estimate accurately the total 

amount that all project proponents will use in the future at the land use plan stage. These amounts will be 

determined at the site-specific ‘activity’ plan stage through an EA or EIS and formally consulted on at 

that time. BLM would be responsible for any mitigation for projects that it proposes that would deplete 

water (e.g., rangeland water developments, etc.) and other project proponents (e.g., oil and gas 

companies) would be responsible for their depletion mitigation. In general, however, impacts from water 

depletions could be discussed in the Biological Assessment and final EIS.

Comment: Even without knowing the magnitude of some of the water depletions that are occurring in the 

PRA, given the precarious state of the endangered fish species - coupled with FWS’s “jeopardy” 

biological opinions on much smaller water depletions elsewhere in the region - there is no question that 

the activities contemplated in the new RMP will jeopardize the existence of the endangered Colorado 

River fish. The proposed RMP (alternative 4) and the other alternatives evaluated in the DEIS do not 

incorporate any meaningful direction that would prevent or fully mitigate further deleterious water 

depletions in the PRA. Historically, the FWS has assessed water users a small “one-time” fee, typically a 

bit over $10 per acre-foot, as mitigation for identified water depletions. Revenues from these fees have 

been paid into the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. Unfortunately, as 

evidenced by the continuing highly imperiled status of the bonytail and razorback sucker - and the ongoing unacceptably low flows in the Colorado River and its tributaries - it is clear this fee-based system is 

not adequate to avoid jeopardy. Given that the existing depleted condition of the Colorado River is 

continuing to jeopardize the fish species, it is not enough to purchase an equivalent amount of water rights 

to offset anticipated additional depletions. Significantly increased flows are needed to restore the habitats 

(e.g., sand bars and back-waters) of these species. This will require securing greater flows than would be 

otherwise needed to offset anticipated new depletions.

Response: All actions have risks associated with them. BLM cooperates with the USFWS to address 

depletions, at the same time attempting to balance the needs of the public for resources that have the 

potential to affect water depletions.

Comment: PAGE: A3-7 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [It is estimated that livestock well 

developments would result in approximately 3.2 acre-feet of water depletion to the Colorado River 

System and contribute to the reduced and regulated flows in the remaining reaches of the fragmented river 

systems that the Colorado squawfish, bonytail chub, humpback chub, and razorback sucker still inhabit 

(Stanford and Nelson 1994).](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Statement assumes conditions that are 

unlikely to be true. Wells would have to tap into aquifers directly affecting river, rather than separate 

aquifer. Second it would assume that use would override flow regulation in Flaming Gorge Reservoir. 

Third well would be large enough to significantly affect system. Statement is unlikely to be true even if 

theotretically possible and standards should be built on performance not worst case.

Response: Court decisions have upheld the ruling that any water depletion from the Colorado River 

system will adversely affect endangered species downstream from the PFO. BLM is required to estimate 

A27-518 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

the amount of water depletion from its actions based on the RFD for BLM-initiated activities. Without 

additional information on groundwater aquifer connectivity to surface waters, BLM will assume that 

shallow livestock water wells contribute to the surface flows.

Comment: Activities that may occur under the new RMP have the potential to cause water depletions in 

this basin. This includes vegetation management near the Rim and water depletions associated with oil 

and gas development in the vicinity of the Rim. Nevertheless, the RMP DEIS does not assess or even 

mention that activities allowed in the PRA could impact these species by contributing to water depletions 

in the Snake River Basin. Even though the activities on BLM lands in the PRA may cause relatively small 

depletions in the Snake River, this river is so depleted already that even small additional depletions may 

jeopardize these imperiled fish and snail species.

Response: All actions have risks associated with them. BLM cooperates with the USFWS to address 

depletions at the same time attempting to balance the needs of the public for resources that have the 

potential to affect water depletions.

Comment: PAGE: 4-188 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [In general, water 

depletions occur when water is removed from flowing rivers and streams, or when water is pumped from 

groundwater aquifers that recharge (are directly connected with) rivers and streams. Groundwater and 

surface water interaction typically occurs in shallow aquifers; increased depths reduce the likelihood of 

impacts from groundwater pumping.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Not an impact relating to RMP

Response: Water depletions due to actions on public lands occur on a frequent basis within the PFO. The 

impacts as described are accurate.

Comment: The new RMP must include direction to minimize surface water depletions from all activities 

in the PRA, including water used for gas development, irrigation ditches, and evaporation from pits and 

ponds. In particular, the new RMP should prohibit surface water depletions from activities (e.g., dust 

suppression or cement production) for which there is a feasible, low-impact alternative that would involve 

less depletion. The new RMP must require adequate mitigation for surface water depletions - determined 

from annual assessment of BLM-authorized activities (direct, indirect and cumulative depletions) - to help 

recover the T/E species in the Colorado River and Snake River. I believe securing 5 acre-feet of 

mitigation flows for every acre-foot of anticipated depletions is reasonable and request that the new RMP 

adopt this (regardless of FWS policy).32

Response: Water is the purview of the State of Wyoming.

Monitoring, Mitigation 

Comment: What means of groundwater monitoring in and around the sites, where the lagoons are located 

have been implemented? With the mention of monitoring Wells, Monitoring Wells should be installed 

from recommendations from a hydro geologist to properly monitor groundwater movement and chemical 

levels. These should be installed near riparian and residential areas within recommended and specified 

distances, to properly maintain a proper scientific examination and monitoring of the gas drilling 

operations. These monitoring Wells shall be tested on a weekly and monthly basis. This would provide a 

proper view of a contamination situation of one should occur to provide data to implement control and 

management of any deleterious material from the fracing and drilling operations as well as accidental 

lagoon breechings. 

An emergency action plan must be drafted, formulated and put into the EIS to contain and manage any 

breeching at the lagoons as well as drilling operations, should monitoring wells indicate the presence and 

movement of contamination. Reviewing and monitoring of the test data should be done by the WYDEQ 

Pinedale RMP A27-519 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

and EPA. Who tests and monitors the soil under the lagoon once the lagoons have been abandoned? If the 

soils are found contaminated an emergency action plan would be put into the EIS to manage such events. 

A lagoon abandonment plan should be incorporated withy the EIS to properly manage the abandonment 

and legal closure of such areas. The closure plan must list the chain of custody of the contaminated soil 

and the disposal areas for such soil. The closure plan should outline the verification that clean soil 

conditions exist and who signs off on it.

Response: WDEQ is in charge of monitoring all water quality violations.

Comment: There are no requirements for extraction companies to report or monitor ground water 

affected by drilling.

Response: These requirements are located in the individual field development documents.

Comment: Stream Channel Geometry. This is yet another laudable addition to the monitoring plan. My 

concerns about this item are similar to the others. First, monitoring is only required every 1-3 years, when 

significant changes in stream channel geometry/morphology can occur in a single season. I recommend 

monitoring stream channels in the spring and in the fall, at least for surface waters in the vicinity of and 

downstream from areas of considerable ground disturbance (including logging and prescribed burn sites). 

Monitoring should also be done after a 10-year storm event occurs in the watershed for a stream. As with 

the other monitoring items, this one also fails to specify the criteria that would be used to determine when 

corrective action would have to be taken and what the correction action(s) would be.

Response: Table A11-1 has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include the following: • Annual precipitation in the Upper Green River Basin 

so changes in surface water flows from activities in the PRA can be gauged. • Estimated flows in the 

Colorado River at Glen Canyon Dam to help gauge impacts on endangered Colorado River fish and on 

downstream water users.

Response: This monitoring information is out of the scope of the RMP analysis.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include the following: • Estimated water consumption (including net surface 

water depletions) attributable to people directly and indirectly employed in the region from BLMauthorized activities. • Estimated total annual ground and surface water depletions in the PRA from all 

uses and activities authorized by BLM.

Response: This monitoring information is out of the scope of the RMP analysis.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include the following: • Estimated water conservation achieved each year in 

the Upper Green River Basin, allowing BLM to track progress (or lack thereof) in recovering the river 

system year-by-year.

Response: This monitoring information is out of the scope of the RMP analysis.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include the following: The estimated annual salinity contribution to the 

Colorado River via the Green River and its tributaries; this should include the natural (background) 

A27-520 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

contribution along with the estimated contributions attributable to BLM-authorized activities in and 

around the PRA (including produced water disposal). • The pH of sampled surface waters in the Wind 

River Mountans.

Response: This monitoring information is out of the scope of the RMP analysis.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include the following: • The annual loss of glacial ice (in acre-feet per year) 

in the Wind River Mountains from climate change and projections of future loss benchmarks (e.g., 50% 

of remaining glacier ice will be lost by year 20XY). • Estimated total acres of natural wetlands in the PRA 

(including seeps and springs that may be impacted by ground water depletions).

Response: This monitoring information is out of the scope of the RMP analysis.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include the following: • Information gathered on the migration of ground 

waters in and around the PRA, including the migration rate(s) of any contaminated ground water plumes.

Response: This monitoring information is out of the scope of the RMP analysis.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include the following: The annual numbers and types of hazardous material 

releases in and around the PRA associated with BLM-authorized activities (e.g., drilling, fracing and 

associated transport); this is to include diesel spills, spills from accidents on highways, overflow of 

produced water tanks, and reported spills at oil and gas support facilities located on private lands.

Response: This monitoring information is out of the scope of the RMP analysis.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include the following: • The measured radioactivity of produced waters and 

emissions, and the tonnage of materials removed from the PRA each year (including equipment and 

produced waters) found to be sufficiently radioactive as to require special handling and/or disposal as 

radioactive waste.

Response: This monitoring information is out of the scope of the RMP analysis.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include • Total number of surface or ground water quality violations in and 

downstream from the PRA attributable to BLM-authorized activities. 

Response: This monitoring information is out of the scope of the RMP analysis.

Comment: I am asking that BLM prepare a revised or supplemental Draft EIS that addresses the issues 

discussed above. This should include a proposed list of aquatic management indicator species. The 

information gathered from all monitoring and evaluation items should also be made available annually to 

the public through a monitoring and evaluation report. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 1505.3(d) (“Upon request, 

make available to the public the results of relevant monitoring”). Since the monitoring plan is a key part 

of BLM’s mitigation effort in the new RMP, the annual monitoring and evaluation report should also 

disclose BLM’s “progress in carrying out mitigation measures ... which were adopted by the agency.” Id. 

at § 1505.3(c).

Pinedale RMP A27-521 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

Response: The draft EIS was appropriate in scope as published. Revisions have been made in some areas 

in response to the public comments gathered. BLM does not plan to prepare a revised or supplemental 

draft EIS for the Pinedale RMP revision.

Comment: The DEIS does not rigorously explore alternative mitigation measures to protect watersheds 

and surface and ground water resources. Throughout my comments I have explained short-comings in the 

proposed management direction for the new RMP. Examples include: 

• The proposed management direction, including mitigation, is entirely discretionary. 

• Much of the proposed management direction is not prescriptive and improperly relies on vague 

“intents” and “outcomes” rather than clear, measurable and enforceable limits. 

• There is no management direction proposed for some key water quality issues, including 

contamination of ground waters from drilling and fracing fluids, ground water drawdowns, 

surface water depletions, salinity increases from activities such as surface disposal of produced 

waters with high salinity, and radioactive contamination of waters. 

• The monitoring plan is discretionary, and for many types of impacts, the monitoring plan does not 

set measurable “action triggers” to trigger corrective action (i.e., mitigation). 

• Where the monitoring plan does specify measurable action triggers, they are so permissive that 

significant degradation could occur before corrective action (i.e., mitigation) would be taken, 

such as allowing water quality to violate State standards before any effort to halt pollutant 

discharge is taken.

Response: The RMP is not an encyclopedia of all knowledge and potential actions by all parties 

associated with the area.

Comment: Why does BLM believe it is not practicable to make management direction - including 

mitigation - fully binding on the agency? Why does BLM believe it is not practicable to institute 

management direction with clear, measurable and enforceable limits? Why does BLM believe it is 

impracticable to provide management direction for drilling, completion and stimulation fluids, such as 

prohibiting the use of certain problematic chemicals? ... for ground water drawdowns? ... for salinity 

increases from produced water disposal? ... for radioactive materials monitoring and disposal? Why does 

the agency believe it is not practicable to set clear and measurable “action triggers” for monitoring and 

mitigation that would halt impacts before they become significant? It appears BLM has carefully designed 

the management direction to provide greatest flexibility, not greatest environmental protection. An 

agency’s desire to have maximum discretion does not make it impracticable to adopt strong enforceable 

management direction that will actually “prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere.” 

42 U.S.C. § 4321.

Response: The RMP will not authorize any on-the-ground activities. It is not possible to design 

appropriate mitigation unless a specific project proposal is being analyzed.

Comment: Appendix 3 of the RMP DEIS presents BLM’s proposed “Mitigation Guidelines and 

Operating. Standards Applied to Surface Disturbing and Disruptive Activities - Alternatives 2, 3 and 4.” 

The mitigation items for “Soils, Watershed and Water” are presented on page A3-5 of that appendix and 

comprise a total of 8 mitigation items. These items only address soil erosion and a few fish habitat issues. 

There is no proposed mitigation for water contamination, increased salinity, protection of ground water 

wells, addressing surface water depletions, or other important water issues. Moreover, the scant 

“mitigation” that is presented in Appendix 3 will not even be binding. Instead, the BLM states: “The 

A27-522 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

guidelines and standards are examples of mitigation measures that could be applied, as appropriate, based 

on site-specific environmental analysis for individual proposals. The use and application of specific 

mitigation measures would be made during the environmental process for individual proposals. The 

mitigation measures or operating standards could change or be modified, based on new information.” 

RMP DEIS, Appendix 3 at A3-1 (emphasis added). In other words, none of the standards or mitigation in 

the new RMP would be binding or enforceable. That management direction would be nothing more than 

suggestions which could be ignored at the project-level. This is shameful. This approach will not ensure 

any minimum protections for natural resources (water or otherwise). And it turns the FLPMA planning 

process in to a complete waste of time and funding.

Response: Water is the responsibility of the State of Wyoming. The interactions of soil, water, and 

vegetation result in multiple benefits for multiple aspects. By addressing soil and fish water quality, 

vegetation and many other aspects are addressed at the same time. Appendix 3 has been revised in the 

final EIS. 

Comment: I have saved Monitoring and Evaluation for the last topic because, no matter how RMP strong 

management direction is, significant impacts can still occur if the BLM does not carefully monitor and 

evaluate conditions to determine when problems are occurring. Appendix 11 of the RMP DEIS contains a 

“Resource Monitoring Table” that “identifies the indicator that will be monitored to detect change in 

resource conditions, the method or technique of monitoring, the locations for monitoring, the unit of 

measurement for monitoring, the frequency and duration for monitoring, and the action triggers or 

thresholds that indicate the effectiveness of the management action.” See DEIS at A11-2. For “Water 

Quality, Watershed and Soils Management.” Broadly speaking, this is a comprehensive and well-thoughtout set of monitoring items. I do have concerns about some of the fine points, though. Water Quality. To 

begin, surface water quality should also be monitored after spills into the waters, not just annually. And it 

should be monitored at 4-6 month intervals due to changes in stream flows, with at least one sample set 

collected. during minimum flows while uses and activities are occurring near the waters. When peak 

flows occur, there would rarely be a noticeable violation of water quality standards, yet the same input of 

contaminants could trigger a violation during low flows. Also, there is no water quality monitoring for 

acid deposition in high elevation lakes. A representative set of lakes should be sampled in several regions 

of the Wind River Mountains at least once annually during late summer. It is my understanding the USFS 

does some limited monitoring of such waters, in cooperation with BLM. Why is this not discussed in the 

DEIS? What has the monitoring revealed?

Response: Water quality and water quality monitoring is the purview of the state. This includes post spill 

monitoring. Specific field development plans such as those for the Jonah and the PAPA require the 

proponents to measure water quality. This may change with changes to the field development plans.

Comment: PAGE:2-140 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: f. BLM would cooperate in 

implementing [collaboratively establish with stakeholders](strikeout) a strategy for assessing baseline 

conditions and monitoring surface and groundwater resources potentially affected by public land uses. 

EXPLANATION: BLM has no jurisdiction but RMP should commit to follow direction of local 

governments Conservation districts and WDEQ have jurisdiction and programs. BLM commitment to 

follow would assist in the implementation.

Response: This entire management action has been deleted from the final EIS.

Comment: DEIS, Appendix 3, page A3-5 (alphabetic enumeration added for reference). Proposed 

mitigation items (a) and (b) sound nice but they do not require protection of aquatic habitats (e.g., 

spawning gravels) from activities outside the stream corridor which cause stream channel erosion. Roads, 

clearcuts and other surface disturbing activities located well away from stream channels can cause stream 

Pinedale RMP A27-523 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

channels to blow out from increases in water yield, even if those activities do not cause appreciable 

upland soil erosion. There is no direction proposed to prevent such adverse changes. The same is true of 

Mitigation items (c) and (d). Mitigation item (e) only says soil erosion would be controlled; it does not 

explain how this would be achieved. The same is true of Mitigation item (f) regarding revegetation. What 

criteria will BLM use to determine when “revegetation” has occurred? Would a site be sufficiently 

revegetated to satisfy the RMP if 25% of the lands are revegetated? ...50%? ...75%? What about vegetated 

species composition? What would be done if initial revegetation efforts fail (a common problem in high 

arid environments)? Who pays for revegetation efforts? There is no useful direction in the RMP DEIS on 

such questions. Instead, the “direction” is essentially a rough outline of BLM’s intentions. Mitigation 

items (g) and (h) are more specific, and prescriptive, but they are “guidance” and therefore are not 

binding. In addition, these provisions would only apply to “highly erodible soils.” Why is there no 

direction for moderately erodible soils? When such soils are disturbed on steep slopes or in drainage 

channels, this can result in severe soil erosion. And why is there no similar direction for other sensitive 

soils, such as those susceptible to rilling and rutting or to compaction?

Response: Appendix 3 has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: For ground water quality monitoring, it is good BLM is including an action trigger related to 

water migrating from one aquifer to another, but it is unclear what action BLM would take if/when this 

trigger occurred. Actually, this is a general problem with the monitoring plan - each monitoring plan item 

in the table states that corrective actions would be taken but it does not say what the corrective actions 

would be. How would BLM determine when water is migrating between aquifers (e.g., due to drilling or 

fracing)? NEPA not only requires monitoring, it also requires “enforcement ... where applicable for any 

mitigation.” 40 C.F.R. § 1505.2.

Response: Water quality is the purview of the state.

Comment: Aquifer Drawdowns. It is also nice to see BLM proposing to monitor “depth to water.” 

However, Appendix 11 indicates this would only be done in “riparian areas.” The areas where ground 

water drawdowns are occurring in the PRA generally do not coincide with riparian areas. In fact, ground 

water is being removed most rapidly from under upland areas in the Jonah and PAPA fields, far from 

riparian areas. This should be corrected. Depth to water should be monitored at all available ground water 

wells within 3-5 miles of any oil or gas well (including CBNG). In addition, given the large volumes of 

ground water that would be extracted each year, depth to water should be monitored annually, not once 

every 2-3 years.

Response: Water is the purview of the state. This also applies to drawdowns of aquifers as well. The 

water table shrinkage mentioned in the table is primarily associated with stream channel functions and 

local unconfined water tables. 

Comment: Surface flows. The stream flow monitoring is also a welcomed and essential addition to the 

monitoring plan. Monthly monitoring is sound, though twice-monthly sampling is advisable during late 

summer when aquatic ecosystems are often the most vulnerable to low flow conditions (e.g., high water 

temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, sediment loading, etc.). The BLM should also disclose the locations 

of the gauging stations that would be used for this monitoring. If they are all upstream of the major 

centers of activity (e.g., PAPA and Jonah fields), they would not provide any useful information about 

how activities authorized by BLM are impacting surface water flows. The trigger action for “stream flow” 

- when trends indicate increased sediment loading and deterioration in water quality - also seems 

inappropriate. While such conditions should trigger some action, stream flows should be based on some 

ecologically-based minimum acceptable flow threshold. The threshold for each stream should be well 

above the minimum flow needed to sustain the aquatic ecosystem; the RMP should not allow aquatic 

A27-524 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

ecosystems to collapse or suffer significant harm before action is taken to correct low flows. Furthermore, 

the RMP should require comparison of historic flows month-to-month. This is needed because, as 

explained earlier in these comments, ground water depletions are likely to cause reductions in surface 

water flows in the PRA. If stream flow declines are observed that do not correlate to precipitation, this 

would indicate ground water drawdowns are adversely affecting surface flows. These depletions would 

then need to be corrected through ESA consultation to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of 

imperiled species downstream.

Response: Table A11-1 has been revised in the final EIS. This is a USGS and WDEQ responsibility. 

BLM does not monitor surface flows.

Comment: Indicator Species. Yet another excellent item in the monitoring plan is the use of 

macroinvertebrate indicator species. I do not believe sampling should only be done once every 2 to 10 

years, as proposed. In arid environments, subject to low seasonal flows and high sediment and salinity 

input, significant changes in benthic communities can occur in less than two years. I suggest annual 

monitoring of macroinvertebrates. I also feel the action trigger for this monitoring item is far too 

permissive. Basically, it would allow the entire population of macroinvertebrates to disappear before 

corrective action could be taken. BLM should monitor population changes of macroinvertebrate indicator 

species and take corrective action when populations are observed to have declined noticeably, but well 

before the population disappears. Beyond tracking species which indicate good water quality conditions, 

BLM should also monitor populations of macroinvertebrates that indicate declining water quality or 

aquatic ecosystem degradation. The Naididae worms mentioned earlier in these comments would be one 

example since they indicate changes in sedimentation [42]. 

Response: Table A11-1 has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: I believe vertebrate, and plant species should also be used as indicators of water quality and 

the health of aquatic ecosystems. Algaes and other aquatic plants can reveal declines toward eutrophic 

conditions, native trout are indicators of siltation (e.g., loss of spawning habitat) and water temperatures, 

dippers also reveal high water quality conditions, and other aquatic species can be used as indicators of 

naturally turbid waters. BLM should produce a candidate list of invertebrate, vertebrate and plant species 

it feels are indicators of water quality (good or bad). This proposed list should be peer-reviewed by 

scientists with expertise on indicator species (including Wyoming benthic organisms), as well as by the 

general public.

Response: Table A11-1 has been revised in the final EIS.

Regulatory Authority, Laws, and Legal Requirements 

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-172: “Surface discharge of produced waters would be considered if 

WDEQ approval was obtained and it could be demonstrated that the augmented flows would not cause 

significant environmental damage, as defined by the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health.” 

Recommendations: BLM should defer to state agency with primacy jurisdiction.

Response: BLM is deferring to the state with regard to water, where the state has primacy. With this 

statement, BLM is stating its primacy in the area where it has legal authority..

Comment: There are many directives the BLM should include in the RMP to direct BLM officers and 

field staff in how to protect watersheds and ground and surface water resources in the PRA. Why is there 

no “common” direction for preventing salinity increases in surface waters? This is certainly an issue that 

applies to any conceivable RMP. The proposed management direction does not even recognize legal 

requirements related to preventing salinity increases in the Colorado River Basin. Why is there no 

Pinedale RMP A27-525 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

direction for preventing or minimizing surface water depletions in the PRA ... or minimizing ground 

water drawdowns? Addressing water depletions is another objective that must be met for any conceivable 

RMP, so there should be some direction on this issue that is “common to all alternatives.” The same can 

be said of preventing soil erosion, protecting ground waters and surface waters from hazmat spills and 

produced water discharges, preventing contamination from radioactive materials (NORM), and protecting 

recharge areas from degradation.

Response: There are many interactions between maintaining healthy water catchments as provided for 

under EO 11990 and 11988 and the other aspects mentioned. Because of the complexities of land 

management, greater flexibility is available under the general direction of the executive orders than would 

be available under specific guidance for individual events. BLM will follow all legal requirements, 

policy, and agency directives. It is not necessary to restate legal requirements in the RMP. Management 

actions and BMPs for surface discharge have been revised in the final EIS. 

Endangered Fish, Habitat 

Comment: Appendix 18 of the DEIS contains the following direction for the four endangered Colorado 

River fish species: 

• Permitted public land users will pay the current surface water depletion fee to the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) for every acre-foot of surface water (average annual depletion) 

used from the Colorado River system. Additional provisions for large depletions (greater than 100 

acre-feet/year) include the following: 

• The development and implementation of an in streamflow work plan with concurrence by the 

implementation committee An appropriation or acquisition of water rights sufficient to 

substantially protect the in-stream flow needs of the endangered fishes in the Colorado River 

• The development of proposed strategies to protect the tributary inflows that con-tribute to the 

Colorado River. 

• Emergency shut-off valves must be installed on petroleum product pipelines within the 100-year 

floodplain of critical habitat. 

• There are several problems with this direction. First, because this language is in an appendix and 

because the BLM has characterized the direction in the DEIS as being mere “guidance,” there is 

no assurance these directives would ever be followed. 

Second, as I discussed previously, the one-time “water depletion fee” being assessed for additional water 

depletions is grossly inadequate to help protect and recover the endangered fish. Despite the assessment 

of these fees, the water flows in the Colorado River continued to decline and reached historic lows over 

the past few years. Given the severely depleted state of the Colorado River, higher fees are needed to 

mitigate any additional depletions and help restore the river ecosystem. 

Third, the bulleted direction only applies to “large depletions” exceeding 100 acre-feet/year. Individual 

gas wells and other activities could cause 100 acre-feet of depletions every year and never trigger the 

directives. There are thousands of gas wells being drilled. The cumulative water depletion could be 

enormous - thousands of acre-feet/year - which could easily jeopardize the endangered fish species. Yet 

so long as individual wells don’t exceed 100 acre-feet/year in depletions there would be no requirement to 

take action or mitigate the impacts. This is piecemealing. The RMP must require mitigation (e.g., 

acquisition of water rights) for the cumulative water depletions, not just the larger incremental depletions. 

A27-526 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

Finally, the BLM would only, develop an streamflow work plan later, outside the RMP process and 

presumably without public input. And this plan would have to be approved by an “implementation 

committee.” The DEIS does not explain what this committee. is, who is on it, and how it would operate. 

If the committee operates on consensus, then it is doubtful any substantive changes would be made to 

improve streamflows because at least one member of the committee would, likely object. The agency 

needs to discuss this important issue since the endangered Colorado River fish are the species most 

vulnerable to extinction from BLM-authorized activities in the PRA.

Response: As stated on page A18-8, the depletion fee would be for the average annual depletion on 

projects that are determined to deplete water from the Colorado River system. For any depletion, 

consultation with USFWS is required. The payment of a fee for use in the recovery of endangered fish 

species was established by USFWS as part of the Colorado River Recovery and Implementation Program 

Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP). This plan states: “Under the Recovery Program, proponents of new 

water projects which undergo Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation have agreed to pay a onetime depletion fee based on a project’s average annual depletion.” That fee is adjusted annually for 

inflation. The RIPRAP “...identifies the specific recovery actions which must be accomplished in order 

for the Recovery Program to serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative to jeopardy to the continued 

existence of the endangered fishes and to avoid the likely destruction or adverse modification of critical 

habitat...” The RIPRAP is revised often to accommodate changes to the recovery status of the fishes. The 

website address to see these updates is http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/crrip/rip.htm. Through 

direction in the RMP, BLM will continue to consult with USFWS on any actions that affect endangered 

species. The actual project-specific actions that need to be implemented by BLM for recovery of 

endangered species will be directed by USFWS through the consultation process and through recovery 

plans such as the RIPRAP.

Comment: PAGE: 4-188 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [Water 

impoundments change the hydrologic characteristics of the watershed and impact fish habitats by altering 

water temperatures and the timing and volume of flow, minimizing the effects of flushing flows and 

altering sediment transport within the system. In addition, impoundments constructed on streams 

containing populations of fish, invertebrates, or amphibians could limit movement between required 

habitats. Reservoirs with habitat sufficient to support salmonid populations would increase habitats 

available for potential trout fisheries. In addition, small reservoirs (including beaver dams) can improve 

stream flow, especially later in the season, by increasing water storage in the soil profile and releasing it 

gradually.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Not an impact relating to RMP

Response: Since right-of-way requests to construct impoundments on public lands have occurred in the 

past, it is quite possible that they could occur in the future. Thus the impacts as described could occur.

Watershed 

Comment: Section 3.15 watershed in water quality service to groundwater it is stated “the section 

focuses primarily on service watersheds because these are the components of the hydrologic cycle most 

vulnerable to management choices. Groundwater has remained largely undeveloped in the planning area 

and is less likely to be affected by surface management decisions although impacts may occur through oil 

and gas drilling activities.” This office disagrees with the focus on watersheds only.. Watersheds to 

contribute the rivers ands streams which drain the land. Rivers and stream are the low points where 

ground water naturally migrates to via elevational differentials. Therefore groundwater and surface waters 

all end up contribute to the same focal point, rivers and streams. The rivers and streams being an 

important valuable resource for wildlife, cattle, agricultural and human activities are influenced by the 

groundwater. Section 3.15 (continued...) Moreover drinking water from wells, in between the 

river/stream/low points and the gas well ( point of contamination), connected to groundwater sources are 

also affected by the flow of groundwater and will eventually be under the influence of the plume created 

Pinedale RMP A27-527 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

by possible contamination. The penetration of these deep gas Wells through the aquifer and the injection 

of proprietary chemicals mixes with the groundwater. This groundwater flows toward the low points of 

local rivers and streams near the gas well. Monitoring and plans as previously mentioned should be 

detailed in the EIS. The statement of “ impacts may occur though oil and gas drilling activities” hints of 

the BLM pre-knowledge of possible contamination and therefore all the more recent that detailed plans 

and monitoring should be outlined and detailed in the EIS. 

Response: The focus on surface watersheds is because we lack information about the groundwater system 

in the area and are presently working to gain additional information. At this time, there is not sufficient 

data to do otherwise. As the studies produce data and understanding, they shall be provided to the public. 

Much of the shallow groundwater does contribute to the surface water system. However, the deeper 

ground water, which is the focus of much of the controversy, is below the level of the river system and 

thus is not directly connected to the surface water system. 

One of the ironies of studying groundwater is that it requires a well and the implied disturbance to the 

aquifer in order to even become aware of its existence. This is especially true for complex fluvial deposits 

such as are encountered in the Pinedale Anticline Production Area (PAPA) and the Jonah field. These 

portions of the Earth’s crust were created by ancient river channels meandering over the land surface and 

have been frequently compared in complexity and structure to a large bowl of potato chips. In short, it is a 

very complex system. Beginning with the initial PAPA EIS, all wells within 1 mile of an active 

hydrocarbon well have been monitored for water quality. Each well is initially monitored for both 

hydrocarbons and mineral analysis. Each subsequent year, every well is then sampled for mineral content 

at a minimum and may be sampled for hydrocarbon content as well. The hydrocarbon test selected for this 

monitoring was sensitive enough to detect levels sufficient to exceed the WDEQ MCLs. In other words, 

these tests were sufficient to determine if the water being tested met all legal requirements. Livestock and 

domestic wells in the area tend to use shallow aquifers. All industrial wells completed under the PAPA 

and Jonah documents are designed to isolate these waters to prevent any problems. The gas wells are at 

least two orders of magnitude deeper than water supply wells. Costs and operational procedures dictated 

that an individual well might not be sampled for hydrocarbons with every sampling event. A saline 

gradient (deeper waters and those aquifers associated with the hydrocarbon production zones are saltier 

than the more shallow aquifers associated with the water wells in question) allowed for monitoring of 

undesired well communication, which would trigger a more complete investigation. 

Unforeseen events, associated with human error, in early 2007 resulted in produced water being 

introduced into a limited number of wells. This was detected by the existing monitoring program and 

triggered a WDEQ investigation and a cleanup of the contaminated wells. As part of this investigation a 

more sensitive test for hydrocarbons was used on all the water supply wells within the PAPA and the 

Jonah fields. This round of tests detected levels of hydrocarbons in sampled wells, some of which were 

below MCL. It is at this point that a great many questions developed: 

1. What is the source of the hydrocarbons: natural, introduced through the drilling procedure, or the 

result of communication between deep and shallow aquifers along the annulus of the well? 

2. Whose jurisdiction does this low level detection fall under? The hydrocarbon levels for the most 

part do not exceed MCL and are not violating WDEQ regulations. BLM monitors surface 

compliance, well construction, and product metering. The Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

(WSEO) monitors well location and water use. The Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission (WOGC) 

monitors hydrocarbon production and well location. 

3. What is to be done about this detection of low levels of hydrocarbons? 

A27-528 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

Wells that exceed MCL are placed in the WDEQ Voluntary Remediation Program, but the majority of 

wells with hydrocarbon detections were below MCL, meaning that their beneficial use was not degraded, 

and the source is not known. To answer these and other questions, all parties involved (federal, state, and 

private) have started an investigation to determine the nature of the contamination and the aquifer 

complex. At this point, all available data are being gathered and analyzed to determine what data gaps 

exist and which ones need to be filled to answer the questions of both source and potential future actions. 

This process is presently underway and is not yet fully defined. It is hoped that it will yield results in 

time. If sound results are produced prior to the publication of the Pinedale RMP/final EIS, appropriate 

data and guidelines will be incorporated either into the RMP or the appropriate subordinate documents. 

The need for an aquifer delineation study was presented early on in the process, but it was determined 

through the Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) that proper well drilling procedures and the 

monitoring of water wells within the production area would be sufficient. This appeared to be the case 

until the events and monitoring of early 2007. 

WDEQ has primacy in terms of waters within the State of Wyoming. BLM works in cooperation with 

WDEQ to maintain the health of the land and the water that flows off it, but it is WDEQ that has the final 

authority with regard to water. Groundwater monitoring and studies are underway but will not produce 

significant results for some time. A decision was made to proceed with the planning process and generate 

an RMP at the same time as the ground water studies continued. As a result, the RMP will not have all of 

the data that will eventually become available as it is being written and will need to incorporate data as it 

becomes available. The establishment and maintaining of monitoring programs are associated primarily 

with individual projects, such as the PAPA and Jonah field developments. It is impractical and in some 

cases illegal to halt development until a complete body of data has been gathered, analyzed, and 

incorporated into proposed actions. As a rule, monitoring plans are standalone documents that reference 

an EIS or EA that has been written for a specific project. The RMP is an overarching document that 

defines the general guidelines for future actions. The new RMP does not change the content of the 

previous EISs and EAs such as those for the Jonah field and PAPA or their associated monitoring plans. 

Appendices 3 and 5 as well as portions of Table A11-1 has been revised in the final RMP/EIS. 

Comment: The DEIS’s arbitrary Watershed CIAA boundary excluded from impact analysis major 

portions of the. higher elevation watersheds feeding into the Green River, New Fork River and Big Sandy 

River. The Watershed Boundary map provided in the DEIS (Map 3-13) also fails to show where affected 

watersheds extend beyond BLM lands.

Response: Map 4-11 shows the extent of the watersheds beyond the boundaries of the planning area. 

BLM feels that the appropriate level of watershed hydrologic unit codes (HUCs) were included in the 

CIAA.

Comment: Another conspicuous omission in the RMP DEIS is information on crucial watersheds and 

areas of hydrologic concern identified in the 1988 Pinedale RMP [11]. The 1988 RMP included the 

following direction: “Management actions will emphasize the reduction of soil erosion and sediment and 

salinity contributions to the Green River Basin water system .... Of particular importance will be those 

areas with highly saline soils such as Soap Holes Basin and crucial watersheds where surface disturbance 

will be minimized. These crucial watersheds are generally found within the boundaries of the ground 

water recharge zones (Map 7).” 1988 RMP at 19 (emphasis supplied). A copy of Map 7 from the 1988 

RMP is attached to these comments as Figure 6. It is not referenced in the revised new RMP DEIS. That 

map shows most of the PRA consists of “Ground Water Recharge Zones” so it is also clearly relevant to 

describing the affected water environment. The recharge zones include the northern and. eastern portions 

of the Pinedale Anticline Project Area, all of the South Rim area, and essentially all lands with moderate 

to high potential for Coal Bed Natural Gas development, (DEIS, Map 4-2).

Pinedale RMP A27-529 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

Response: Detailed soil surveys are presently underway in the PFO area. These soil surveys will make it 

possible for a more accurate focusing of erosion control efforts than provided for in previous analyses. 

Unfortunately they will not be available in time for publication of the RMP. 

Comment: The RMP DEIS also states the BLM would develop an “activity plan for reducing erosion and 

channel degradation” in the Tip Top watershed, and would develop a separate “watershed and recreation 

plan” to reduce sedimentation (soil erosion) in the Stuart Point - Mount Airy area. Id. After many decades 

of managing the public lands, it is astonishing to me that BLM still has not completed these essential 

tasks. In any case, it seems the BLM is intending to develop management direction for these key issues in 

a vacuum, at some unspecified future dates with no public involvement.

Response: Higher management priorities since completion of the 1988 RMP have precluded completion 

of these watershed plans. The management actions in the draft EIS are intended to address erosion and 

watershed health on a planning-area scale. A number of management actions have been implemented 

since 1988 to control erosion in the Tip Top area with good results.. 

Toxins, Turbidity, Pollution 

Comment: The State Water Quality Rules require that “[a]ll Wyoming surface waters shall be free from 

substances and conditions or combinations thereof which are attributable to or influenced by the activities 

of man, in concentrations which produce undesirable aquatic life.” See [3], Section 28 (Undesirable 

Aquatic Life). The State Rules also require Class 2 waters to be “free from substances, whether 

attributable to human-induced point source discharges or non point source activities, in concentrations or 

combinations which will adversely alter the structure and function of indigenous or intentionally 

introduced aquatic communities.” See [3], Section 32. Although the State water quality criteria for iron 

are fairly permissible, moderate dissolved iron concentrations can be harmful to aquatic species. As 

shown in the produced water composition data I summarized in Table 1, some produced waters have iron 

concentrations in excess of 10 mg/l and approaching 100 mg/l. Such concentrations can be problematic to 

aquatic species and discharge of such waters may, therefore, violate Section 28 or 32 of the State Water 

Quality Rules - even if there is no violation of the water quality criteria for iron. The DEIS does not 

address these potential impacts from produced waters. What concentrations of chromium, silver and. iron 

are in “treated” produced waters that may be discharged to surface waters? What limits will be imposed 

on the concentrations of these materials in produced waters that would be discharged into surface waters 

such as the New Fork River?

Response: WDEQ has primacy with regard to the management of water quality.

Comment: The PAPA Draft SEIS ([8] at 3-82) states that treated water must pass toxicity testing - 

including testing on trout fingerlings, water fleas and minnows - before being discharged into surface 

waters. However, this testing will apparently only address acute toxicity effects on two components of the 

aquatic ecosystem (fish and one type of invertebrate). It will not re-veal potential chronic lethality and 

sub-lethal impacts (including those of low-concentration carcinogens and mutagens) and possible bioaccumulation effects. Nor will it reveal potential problems with introducing organisms previously isolated 

in ground-waters into surface waters. And it will not address sediment production and increased turbidity 

downstream that would result from increased localized water discharges into streams. The RMP Final EIS 

(and any revised or supplemental draft) must address these issues related to surface water degradation 

from produced water disposal. 

Response: WDEQ has primacy with regard to the management of water quality. 

Comment: There is evidence sediment discharge from gas field development may already be having adverse impacts on surface waters. As I noted earlier, a 2005 macroinvertebrate analysis revealed the 

A27-530 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

presence Naididae worms in the New Fork River [42]. The Water Resources Task Group acknowledged 

that “[t]his sediment dwelling worm can be an indicator of sedimentation or algae development. It can be 

a one-time occurrence from a tributary or a developing chronic situation.” Id. The New Fork River has 

been subject to sediment influx due to construction work on the Paradise Road and nearby well pads and 

facilities. The RMP DEIS does not address this issue. If the worms are indicative of increased 

sedimentation associated with BLM-authorized activities, this would constitute a violation of Section 32 

of the State Water Quality Rules [3] which requires that Class 1, 2 and 3 surface waters be “free from 

substances, whether attributable to human-induced point source discharges or non point source activities, 

in concentrations or combinations which will adversely alter the structure and function of indigenous or 

intentionally introduced aquatic communities.” Section 28 of the Rules (Undesirable Aquatic Life) also 

requires that “surface waters shall be free from substances and conditions or combinations thereof which 

are attributable to or influenced by the activities of man, in concentrations which produce undesirable 

aquatic life.” Id.

Response: Analysis of subsequent samples of microinvertebrates indicates a decreasing population of the 

little sediment dwelling worms. Therefore, it is a more complex situation than might occur with a steady 

increase in numbers. The RMP does not need to contain all the information of the tiered documents.

Comment: The DEIS does not evaluate any such potential impacts. What are the estimated natural 

sediment loadings for surface waters in the PRA? How much additional sediment will enter each stream 

from human activities (e.g., roads, well pads, pipelines, logging, etc.)? Where will sediments enter 

streams? Are the anticipated sediment loads likely to adversely impact the aquatic environment, such as 

by covering trout spawning habitat? What monitoring will be done to identify sediment influx before it 

becomes serious? What specific management direction will BLM adopt to correct activities that are 

causing sedimentation of surface waters? I could not find answers to these questions in the DEIS for any 

of the alternatives.

Response: BLM does not have the resources to gather the background data or run field office–wide 

projections under various development scenarios at this time. BMPs and onsite corrective actions will be 

used to control sedimentation and other impacts of development. 

Comment: The DEIS does not evaluate impacts associated with any sources. of increased salinity. Nor 

does it discuss the Salinity Control Act (P.L. 93-320, as amended) or the Colorado River Salinity Control 

Program / Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The latter establishes a policy of “no salt return 

whenever practicable” and requires a showing that prevention of salt discharge is not practicable before 

new saline discharges are allowed through NPDES permitting [45]. Several alternatives described in the 

DEIS do not appear to adhere to these policies. Even Alternative 4 allows salinity increases, provided 

they can be “remediated.” DEIS at 2-139.

Response: The Colorado River Salinity Control Act is mentioned on page 3-110.

Comment: PAGE: G-15 CHANGE: NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION - [Pollution whose source is 

not specific in location. The source of the discharge is dispersed, not well defined, or 

constant.](STRIKEOUT) Non-point sources of pollution, as distinguished from “point sources” defined in 

Section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act of 1987, are diffuse in nature, difficult to assess, and result from 

land use activities in which contaminated runoff flows into surface water or percolates into ground water. 

Many factors, such as precipitation, soil type, slope, geology, vegetative cover, depth to groundwater, and 

distance to surface water can affect whether a land use will cause nonpoint source pollution. The sitespecific nature of these factors, coupled with local economic and cultural considerations, are conducive to 

prevention and restoration activities which are best addressed and implemented through local initiatives 

and voluntary implementation by individual landowners. EXPLANATION: Definition revised to conform 

Pinedale RMP A27-531 
Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality Final EIS 

to definition in Wyoming DEQ, Division of Water Quality’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan with 

which BLM must comply under Executive Orders 12088 and 12372, and §§ 319(k) and 301(k) of the 

Clean Water Act of 1987.

Response: The definition is appropriate as given in the draft EIS.

Comment: The RMP DEIS also fails to discuss impacts to surface and ground waters from various other 

potential sources of degradation. Some examples include: septic tanks, septic fields, and sewage treatment 

lagoons; landfills (including historic dumping sites) and transfer stations; chemicals used for mosquito 

spraying in and around the PRA; junk yards and other maintenance facilities in or bordering BLM lands; 

and outdoor shooting ranges (sources of lead contamination). The Final EIS (and any revised or 

supplemental draft EIS) must disclose the potential impacts from these and other sources of ground and 

surface water degradation in the PRA.

Response: Many of these sources are not the responsibility of BLM and most frequently do not occur on 

BLM lands; therefore, they are out of the scope of this document. For those sites that are on BLM lands, 

some have associated documents, some do not. Because such sites are quickly created by anyone who 

wants to dump a load of garbage and are not recorded with BLM, it is difficult to keep track of their 

locations. There have been concerted efforts in the past to clean up known sites, but they are created at a 

greater rate than they are dealt with. The RMP is being assembled using the best available data.

Comment: The management direction “common to all alternatives” should consist of the full set of the 

direction needed to provide the basic essential protections for watersheds and water resources from all 

conceivable harms. This must include direction to prevent and remediate ground water contamination, 

direction to avoid or minimize of ground water drawdowns, direction to prevent surface water depletions, 

direction to avoid salinity increases in surface and ground waters, direction to protect waters from 

radioactive discharges (including non-point source run-off), and so on. None of these important water 

issues is addresed in the Executive Orders or State Water Quality Standards cited in the RMP DEIS 

direction. From this set of minimum essential direction the BLM can formulate other alternatives that use 

varying degrees of increased protections. The approach the BLM is pursuing in the RMP DEIS appears to 

be based on the idea that some alternatives should be allowed to impact ' ground and surface waters so 

long as the impacts do not violate the two EOs or water quality standards for surface waters, and so long 

as BLM has a “response” plan in place, for hazmat spills. This approach is fundamentally wrong.

Response: The complexity of land management, variety of agencies and agency responsibilities, the 

changing nature of technology, and the level of documentation in the RMP contraindicate the creation of 

such specific guidelines. Much of this suggestion is related to State of Wyoming responsibilities. 

Comment: Prohibit the storage, use and transport of hazardous materials - in quantities exceeding 100 

gallons or capable of contaminating more than one million gallons (3 acre-feet) of water, whichever is 

less - on lands overlying “high” sensitivity aquifers (red areas in Figure 3).

Response: BLM does not have regulatory authority in these areas and cannot mandate action on the part 

of the agencies that enforce the regulations.

Livestock Grazing 

Response: This statement has been misinterpreted by the reviewer. BLM finds that the analysis is 

appropriate. 

PAGE: 4-173, SECTION: 4.15.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE [Livestock grazing] 

(STRIKEOUT) Grazing by wildlife, wild horses and livestock has the potential to impact water quality 

A27-532 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Watershed and Water Quality 

and watershed resources. Heavy utilization of forage in riparian areas or uplands can lead to a loss of 

vegetation, soil compaction, and bank instability, causing increased erosion, sedimentation, and higher 

loads of salt and nutrients, such as nitrate and phosphate, in streams. EXPLANATION: More biased and 

inaccurate text

Response: It is reasonable for the EIS to reveal potential impacts from grazing animals on water quality 

and watershed resources. BLM finds that the analysis is appropriate.

Comment: PAGE: 4-183 SECTION: 4.17.3 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Placement of water 

development projects for livestock in certain areas could lead to a redistribution of livestock on crucial 

winter ranges and away from more sensitive riparian areas. [, resulting in the loss of sufficient forage 

needed to maintain wildlife herd numbers during winter.](STRIKEOUT)Water developments that are 

maintained throughout the year can be beneficial to wildlife where other water sources are limited. 

Properly distributed water developments can be used to facilitate rotational or other livestock grazing 

schemes to improve rangeland health and also provide better forage for wildlife. Well-designed water 

developments (reservoirs) and associated riparian vegetation create nesting, feeding, and brood-rearing 

habitat for waterfowl, greater sage-grouse, and other migratory birds. The development of water sources 

in dry regions would allow wildlife use to expand into habitats that previously were used only seasonally. 

Dispersion of wildlife to access water sources reduces potential impacts from predators; however, 

livestock use around water sources may [would](STRIKEOUT) also alter vegetative diversity found in 

these mesic areas, [potentially reducing habitat quality for a wide variety of wildlife species, including 

sage-grouse.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Second half of statement untrue due to utilization levels 

and rangeland health management. The immediate area around water source is so small as not to have 

impact on “habitat quality for variety of species.” Also unlikely to alter vegetative diversity.

Response: The analysis has been rephrased in the final EIS.

Pinedale RMP A27-533 
Appendix 27—Wildland Fire and Fuels Final EIS 

Wildland Fire and Fuels 

General Comment Responses: No GCRs are associated with this category.

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes 

Comment: PAGE:2-142 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add: Wildfire management would 

conform to air quality standards and objectives. EXPLANATION: 

Response: This issue is dealt with in “Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives” Section 

2.3.13.

Comment: PAGE: 4-174, SECTION: 4.15.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Wildfires will have 

impacts on watershed due to short term increase in water flows and related soil erosion.

Response: See the updated text in paragraph 6 on page 4-153. This section describes both the short- and 

long-term impacts of fire. Most of the vegetation within the planning area is part of a naturally mixed- or 

high-severity fire regime (i.e., fire severity of partial or total overstory removal). The impact analysis in 

the final EIS has been updated for clarity.

Fire Frequency 

Comment: PAGE: 4-175, SECTION: 4.16.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Correct fire history Local 

governments question assumption of no more than 2 fires a year.

Response: The current BLM Fire Management Plan for the area indicates an average of 4 fires per year 

from 1980 through 2003 (72 fires in 24 years). Data from 1970 to 1980 indicate 2.3 fires per year (23 fires 

in 10 years). Data from 2004 through 2007 show 2.3 fires per year (9 fires in 4 years). The total is 104 

wildland fires in 38 years. This is an average of 2.7 fires per year.

Comment: PAGE:4.276 SECTION:4.16.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: CHECK The potential for 

wildland fires within the planning area to seriously damage sensitive resource values is considered to be 

low in areas proposed for WFU as well as in areas considered for appropriate management response. 

EXPLANATION: MSA identifies conifer stands at 98% morbidity, which would correlate to wind river 

Front.

Response: The Pinedale MSA contains no mention of 98% morbidity within conifer stands. There are 

stands that have bark beetle infestations and a particular tree species within an individual stand may 

approach this, but it is not field office–wide.

Comment: PAGE: 4-189 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [Wildlife species 

have adapted to survive the pattern of fire frequency, season, size, severity, and uniformity that 

characterized their habitat in pre-settlement times. Historically, low-intensity fires created mosaics 

resulting in more variability in vegetation seral stage, species composition, vertical stratification, and 

improved herbaceous understory. If the fire frequency or severity increases or decreases from 

presettlement patterns, habitat for many species would decline. Animal-fire studies have shown a 

reorganization of animal communities in response to fire, with increases in some species and decreases in 

others (Smith 2000). In areas where fire exclusion has changed species composition and fuel arrays over 

large areas, subsequent fires without prior fuel modification are unlikely to restore pre-settlement 

vegetation and habitat. In the last 10,000 years, fire in North America ecosystems has not operated in 

isolation from other disturbances or has occurred independent of human influence (Smith 

2000).](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Not an impact common to all

A27-534 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Response: Wildland fire is an impact common to all alternatives in this section. 

Catastrophic Fire 

Comment: PAGE: 4-153, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Catastrophic fires in forest stands with 

high mortality stands or on grasslands can destroy organic material in soil and greatly inhibit 

regeneration. There are also short-term erosion and water pollution impacts Wildfire can also cause 

mortality of wildlife and sensitive species and remove important habitat components. EXPLANATION: 

Not all wildland fires are beneficial. 

Response: This section describes both the short- and long-term impacts of fire. Most of the vegetation 

within the planning area is part of a naturally mixed- or high-severity fire regime (i.e., fire severity of 

partial or total overstory removal). The impact analysis in the final EIS has been updated for clarity.

Comment: PAGE: 4-189 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Over the past several 

decades, human intervention in fire suppression has led to unnatural fuel-loading conditions that could 

allow wildfires to burn with greater intensity.](STRIKEOUT) Using fire as a habitat management tool in 

a sage-steppe ecosystem may have effects if improperly used such as converting desirable shrub and 

perennial grass stands to annual grasses or maintaining annual grass communities. EXPLANATION: 

Western history is replete with stories of widespread and catastrophic fires long before fire suppression 

policy.

Response: There is no good definition for “catastrophic” fire. Many large fires have occurred in natural 

settings within a historic range of variability. Human activity has also been directly responsible for some 

of the “catastrophic” large fires in the Upper Midwest around the turn of the century and in logging slash 

in some areas of Idaho in 1910 as well as the Tillamook burn(s) starting in the 1930s. I would suggest that 

some but not all of the vegetative types found in the Pinedale Field Office have been affected by fire 

suppression activities. Foremost among these is the sagebrush/grass ecosystem. 

Off-highway Vehicles (OHV) 

Comment: PAGE:4-177 SECTION:4.16.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add With fewer OHV users 

in back country fewer fires will be reported and there is an increased risk of wildfire spreading. 

EXPLANATION:

Response: In an area such as this, with low fire frequency, it is doubtful that OHV riders would ever be a 

significant source of fire reporting. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-179 SECTION: 4.16.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Fewer OHV 

recreationists will hamper fire reporting and fire suppression. Limits on OHV use for emergencies and 

fire fighting will increase risk of wild fire spreading out of control.

Response: In an area such as this, with low fire frequency, it is doubtful that OHV riders would ever be a 

significant source of fire reporting. Mechanized equipment usage on wildland fires often cause more 

long-term environmental damage than the fire through INNS introduction, erosion, and creation of 

unauthorized roads and trails. The constraints in the draft RMP are appropriate for the values at risk.

Timber Harvest 

Comment: PAGE: 4-179 SECTION: 4.16.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: Impacts 

not the same if less timber allowed.

Pinedale RMP A27-535 
Appendix 27—Wildland Fire and Fuels Final EIS 

Response: Alternative 4 now considers up to 200 acres of forest treatment per year with 1,600 CCF/800 

thousand board feet (MBF) of forest product.

Habitat 

Comment: PAGE: 4-181 SECTION: 4.17.3 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Impacts resulting from 

wildfire and prescriptive burns would change habitat, cause mortality, habitat loss, fragmentation, 

avoidance or displacement of animals from management areas, noise disturbance, and increased traffic 

during fire fighting. EXPLANATION: EIS needs to disclose that wildfire has similar or greater impacts. 

Response: The text on pages 4-189-191 deals with these issues.

Local Coordination 

Comment: PAGE:2-142 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add the following: Coordinate 

wildfire management plans and implementation with local and state fire districts and with local 

governments. EXPLANATION: This important objective is entirely omitted. It is however crucial to 

wildfire management, especially since much of the planning area is private land. 

Response: Although coordination with state and local fire authorities is implicit in this section, it is never 

directly spelled out. The final EIS has been updated to include this goal. Please note that the document 

refers to wildland fire management rather than wildfire. Wildland fire is any fire in the wildlands, while 

wildfire is only unwanted wildland fire.

A27-536 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

General Comment Responses: 

Comments: 

• While grizzly bears are slated to be removed from the threatened list -- a controversial move -- 

their habitat would be decimated by wider drilling activities: when bears see an intrusion into 

their range, they simply avoid the area that would require their negotiating human presence, thus 

drastically reducing their range and their eventual population numbers. 

• The grizzlies, as I understand it, have been delisted. I think that that language should be stricken, 

the entire paragraph. If there’s a need for language about the grizzly, it should be paired down to 

pertinent information rather than just a wish list for the grizzly rather -- or similar to the T & E 

stuff. 

Response: After delisting, grizzly bears are protected as a BLM sensitive species under BLM Manual 

6840-Special Status Species Management. In addition, the ESA requires that the FWS, in cooperation 

with the states, monitor the species for a minimum of 5 years to assess each species’ ability to sustain 

itself without the ESA’s protective measures. If, within the designated monitoring period, threats to the 

species change or unforeseen events change the stability of the population, then the species may be 

relisted or the monitoring period extended (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/delisting.pdf). 

Comments: 

• PAGE: 2-147, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise: Reevaluate merit and environmental 

impacts of elk feedgrounds. EXPLANATION:See Comment #143. 

• PAGE: 2-148, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [c. Surface occupancy would be prohibited on 

feedgrounds except authorized activities to maintain feedground facilities and manage wintering 

elk.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: Condition not warranted nor supported by data.

Response: The feedgrounds are evaluated in the draft EIS and final EIS. Just because a particular 

alternative does not eliminate them does not mean that elimination was not considered. 

Comments: 

• PAGE: 2-147, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: j. To minimize fragmentation and human presence 

in winter ranges, access to big game crucial winter ranges outside producing gas fields would be 

limited to existing designated access routes. Exceptions could be allowed to provide reasonable 

access to private or state-owned lands and other interests in land or permits. EXPLANATION: 

See Comment #163. 

• PAGE: 4-186 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Elk have until now been able to 

find suitable undisturbed habitats away from human activity; however, continued development 

could lead to abandonment of historic ranges (in the last native winter foraging area on the 

Wyoming Range) (Johnson 1985). A study conducted by Hayden-Wing Associates (1990) found 

a similar response in the Graphite Hollow/Rock Creek Winter Range where elk moved 0.5 to 2.4 

miles away from a well site but returned or moved only a short distance based on screening of 

project. Biologists now conclude that elk habituate to non-threatening activities.. 

EXPLANATION: Taylor 2005

Pinedale RMP A27-537 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Response: Phillips and Alldredge (2000) and Shively et al. (2005) demonstrated a 30% reduction in elk 

calf recruitment as a result of an activity as benign as simulated recreational hiking imposed during the 

calving season. Freddy et al. (1986) studied the impacts to wintering mule deer from people on foot and 

snowmobiles. Rowland et al. (2000 and 2005) provides a discussion of elk distribution in relation to 

roads, and Sawyer et al. (2007) discusses elk habitat selection in the Jack Morrow Hills of Wyoming and 

considers the impact of roads. 

Comments: 

• Where is mention of the critical wildlife corridors whose fragmentation would cause further 

depletion of the populations of major big game and other species? (See SDSBT comments Eagle 

Prospect, Figures 1 and 2). Where is there even a mention that the planning area lies within the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and that this draft plan can and will have an impact on the 

environment and economies of the entire Wyoming/Idaho/Montana tri-sate region? 

• The data presently available conclusively demonstrate the health of the sage-grouse population 

and trends in quality of the available habitats in the Pinedale Resource Area have markedly 

declined over at least the last 10 years. The overall trend in number of sage-grouse counted in 

spring is down and the number of inactive leks has increased. The DEIS should have presented 

data on trends in numbers of active sage-grouse leks, counts of males on leks, and production data 

such as chicks per hen which would have allowed a thorough analysis for identifiable areas 

within the Resource Area. These data are available for the Pinedale Resource Area (WDGF files). 

Failure to present these data in the DEIS is a significant omission and underscores the unscientific 

and/or unprofessional analysis of the marked changes in sage-grouse abundance over the last 10 

years in the Pinedale Resource Area. In the absence of presentation of these data, an adequate 

analysis of the direct and cumulative impacts of the four proposed alternatives is not possible, 

especially for the ‘Intensively’ and ‘Minimally’ Development Areas. 

• There is a major wildlife (both deer and antelope) corridor and bottleneck on the Hoback Rim. 

Current Game and Fish maps show this but it is not recognized in the RMP Environmental Impact 

Statement. Alternative 4 actually designates this area as Controlled Surface Use leasing category, 

which allows surface occupancy. Aside from Trapper’s Point, other major corridors do not seem 

to be addressed in this Alternative either.

Response: Updated migration corridor maps have been developed between BLM and the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 

Comments: 

• The BLM places undue reliance on the Holloran (2005) study regarding the potential impacts of 

natural gas development activities on sage-grouse. In discussing the Helloran study, and any 

potential conclusions derived therefrom, the BLM should specifically disclose the fact that BLM 

purposefully waived the seasonal and timing stipulations normally associated with sage-grouse 

leks and specifically allowed the operators to drill near an active lek during the strutting season in 

order to assess the potential impacts. The conclusion in the Holloran study that existing 

stipulations are not adequate therefore appears unfounded. Moreover, even prior to the release of 

the Holloran study, the BLM issued new policies increasing protections for sage-grouse. The new 

protections include new surface use restrictions, timing limitations, and L\W additional surveys 

prior to operations in sage-grouse habitat. See Wyoming Instruction Memorandum 2004-057 

(August 16, 2004). These mitigation measures were eventually incorporated into the Pinedale 

Resource Management Plan (“RMP”) through a maintenance action. 

A27-538 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

• Pg. 4-186, paragraph three, discusses the impacts of gas development on the PAPA to sagegrouse 

and specifically states that “Research has shown that sage-grouse will tolerate one well per 

section within 3 miles of a lek (Holloran 2005)”. Holloran specifically states that his findings are 

premised on the assumption that any impact to sage-grouse is a negative response and a 

determination of what a grouse will not accept. Therefore, any impact resulted in a negative 

finding and NO impact was the only positive response. As mitigation measures are intended to 

reduce impacts, not necessarily eliminate impacts, this test was overly stringent. As can be seen 

from the graph, identified as Figure 6, attached to this document, average male lek attendance in 

the PAPA is increasing as it is outside the PAPA and else where in the State even though it is at a 

lower level on impacted vs. un-impacted leks. While this is perceived by Holloran to be negative 

we consider it positive as birds are being maintained within the developed area due to the 

implementation of the standard sage-grouse stipulations. Paragraph 4 states that “Sage-grouse 

could repopulate an area following energy development, but there is little evidence suggesting 

grouse would attain pre-development levels” but as can be seen in Figure 1, below, grouse are 

common in developed oil and gas fields in Wyoming. Generally, the data of sufficient quality 

does not exist by which to determine if pre-development numbers are attained. The decline that 

occurred in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s was range wide in scope and any comparison of 

current male lek attendance numbers with numbers seen prior to that decline are inappropriate 

and not relevant to a discussion of impacts of the development as, again, range wide the species 

has not achieved pre decline numbers. Also in paragraph 4 it states “Other studies conducted on 

greater sage-grouse indicate that noise could adversely affect the communication abilities of 

lekking males.” Page 2-144 provides “c. Noise generating activities would be minimized through 

the application of BMPs such as high efficiency mufflers.” The implementation of BMPs in 

reducing impacts must be acknowledged in the impacts analysis found in Chapter 4. Paragraph 5 

reiterates the discussion of the lack of tolerance of males to development activities greater that 1 

well per 699 acres, please see the discussion above, Holloran reaches this conclusion based on 

any impact to the bird, not the maintenance of the bird within the field area. It is further stated 

“Overall declines in male lek attendance approached 100% when the distance from leks to 

drilling rigs, producing wells and main haul roads decreased ...” this observation was based on 

the purposeful impact of leks by BLM to determine the impact of unrestricted gas development 

on the sage-grouse. BLM PFO purposely impacted leks in the PAPA by excepting the standard 

stipulation, a copy of one of the APD authorizations is provided in Figure 3, below. Further, as 

illustrated in Figure 1, male lek attendance in the PAPA continues to increase in spite of impacts 

to individual leks as it does in a number of other oil and gas fields in the state. Paragraph 6 

provides evidence that female sage-grouse have high fidelity to their natal nesting habitat; Kaiser 

2006 found that this is not necessarily the case, stating “there was little, if any, natal nest site 

fidelity shown by yearlings”, and “adult hens were willing to shift their breeding lek, despite 

substantial lek fidelity normally exhibited.”

Response: Holloran’s research was not the only energy-related study on the impacts to sage-grouse 

populations. Braun, C. E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge, 2002, Oil and gas development in 

western North America: effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on sage grouse, 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 67:337-349; Doherty, K. 

E., D. E. Naugle, B. L. Walker, and J. M. Graham, in press, Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection 

and energy development, Journal of Wildlife Management; Kaiser, R. C., 2006, Recruitment by greater 

sage-grouse in association with natural gas development in western Wyoming, Thesis, University of 

Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming; Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson, 2003, Potential gas development 

impacts on sage-grouse nest initiation and movement, Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491; Walker, 

B.L., D.E. Naugle, and K.E. Doherty, in press, Greater sage-grouse population response to energy 

development and habitat loss, Journal of Wildlife Management. Furthermore, allowing one well to be 

drilled by waiving the NSO does not change the fact that there are large-scale lek declines in the Jonah as 

Pinedale RMP A27-539 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

well as the Anticline gas developments. This trend is not only seen in the populations found in the Upper 

Green River Basin but also the Powder River Basin. 

Comments: 

• Mitigation measures (App. 3) and Best Management Practices (App. 5) are inadequate formalities 

at best. Mitigations that are non-binding, with no clear time frames and no guidelines for how 

funding or personnel staffing for implementation will be achieved are pointless. Phrases like 

“could be required,” “are encouraged,” “should be minimized by any reasonable measures,” and 

“should be avoided” are dangerous subtleties which leave., avenues for environmental 

degradation wide open, and successful mitigation all but unnecessary for Operators to achieve. 

Instead, there need to be concrete plans laid for how mitigation will occur, funding will be 

derived, and how strict and heavy fines will be instated for non-compliance. 

• We believe that across all of the alternatives, the draft RMP is lacking specific and quantifiable 

criteria for fluid mineral best management practices in reducing impacts to big game crucial 

winter range; is insufficient in describing the off-site or compensation mitigation process; and 

fails to set thresholds for impacts to wildlife. Such thresholds are critical for the appropriate 

management of pronghorn and should be set by the WGFD to include species-specific parameters 

below which mitigation measures will automatically be mandated. Measurable population 

parameters include minimum population size, minimum adult and juvenile survival rates, and 

minimum fawn:doe and buck:doe ratios. 

• Impacts to wildlife species also cannot be adequately determined without greater information 

regarding locations of well, facility, and road sites. Impacts such as fragmentation and barriers to 

movement and migration can be effectively analyzed only when the actual location of well pads, 

facilities and roads are known. Impacts to big game species, particularly in crucial winter range, 

differ significantly depending on whether the development is concentrated in one area of the 

range or spread throughout. Likewise, impacts to sage grouse depend on this distribution of 

development. Finally, Appendix 3’s list of performance-based standards describes measures 

intended to mitigate impacts to wildlife. What is missing, however, is any indication of where or 

when or if any of these measures would be employed. Without knowing how many and which 

measures will be used, it is impossible to use these performance-based standards as a way of 

identifying and comparing the environmental impacts associated with this RMP.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted.

Appendices 3 and 5 have been revised in the final EIS. 

Comments: 

• The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) conservation measures and best management practices 

listed in the DEIS are not the same as those listed in the programmatic BA and corresponding 

Service concurrence letter dated January 10, 2006, and found at the Bureau's website 

http://www.bhn.gov/vvy/st/en/programs/Wildlife/blf-fenet.html. The Service suggests changing 

the conservation measures in the DEIS, if appropriate. 

• Some conservation measures and effects determinations included in the draft BA were not 

consistent with the Bureau’s Statewide Programmatic Species-Specific section 7 consultations 

(programmatic BAs and BOs) or Appendix 18 of the DEIS. The Service encourages the Bureau to 

A27-540 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

review the programmatic BAs and BOs and revise the draft BA and Appendix 18 of the DEIS, if 

appropriate.

Response: The conservation measures will be updated for the final EIS, the ROD and the BA. 

Comments: 

• Draft BA, Page 46, Lines 17-22 The draft BA states: “This list of potential conservation measures 

identified within this BA is meant to be a tool to (1) educate new biologists as to which 

onservation measures have been or may be used to minimize impacts to listed, proposed, or 

petitioned species in Wyoming; and (3) assist the PFO in developing mew conservation measures 

for Statewide Programmatic Biological Assessments for each T&E species that has the potential 

to occur in the planning area.” The Service believes this paragraph was carried forward from 

earlier versions of lists of conservation measures which were previously not finalized in the form 

of completed programmatic BAs and BOs. Since the programmatic BAs and BOs for the majority 

of the listed species have now been completed and the Bureau has committed to implementing 

specific protective measures, the above paragraph, as written, no longer applies. The Service 

suggests striking this paragraph in its entirety or, at a minimum, modifying its meaning to reflect 

the current status of the Terms and Conditions of the completed programmatic BOs. Since the 

completion of the programmatic BAs and BOs, it is the Service’s understanding that the 

conservation measures present in the statewide consultations are Bureau-committed measures 

which the Bureau shall implement according to the various relevant Bureau’s State Office 

directive memoranda issued to the Bureau field offices across Wyoming. 

• Draft BA, Page 45, Line 36-37 The draft BA states “if avoidance is not possible, informal 

consultation with the USFWS would be initiated.” The Service believes that this statement may 

more appropriately read, “informal or formal consultation with the USFWS will be initiated for 

site-specifix projects which may affect listed species.” 

• The Bureau states: “To ensure compliance with mitigation measures presented in this BA and in 

project applications, BLM and/or a project proponent, in coordination with BLM, will assess 

potential impacts to threatened and endangered species during construction and/or 

implementation of those projects. These impacts will be assessed on a case-by-case basis during 

construction and/or implementation of those projects. Project-wide mitigation measures may be 

waived on a case-by-case basis by BLM if a thorough analysis determines that the resource for 

which the measure was developed will not be impacted.” The Service believes that these impacts 

from potential projects should be assessed prior to project approval by the Bureau and section 7 

requirements should be fulfilled at that time by the Bureau for all activities that the Bureau has 

determined “may affect” a listed species or its designated critical habitat. When the Federal 

agency proposing an action determines that a "may affect" situation exists, they must either 

initiate formal consultation or seek written concurrence from the Service that the action is "not 

likely to adversely affect" listed species. Also, the Service prefers the term "impact minimizing 

measures" instead of "mitigation measures." The Service does not “mitigate” for threatened and 

endangered species. Instead, the Service formally consults with action agencies that “may affect” 

listed species and determines whether those agencies’ actions will jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species, while identifying Terms and Conditions to minimize “take”. We 

suggest removing the term “mitigation” for threatened and endangered species throughout the BA 

and DEIS where it occurs.

Response: The text of the BA has been changed. 

Comments: 

Pinedale RMP A27-541 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

• PAGE: 3-116, SECTION: 3.17.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Insert data regarding drought 

and effects of increased predators on antelope, mule deer, elk, and moose. EXPLANATION: 

While all of the game animal populations are up or stable, there is no recognition of the impacts 

of drought and predator numbers on game animals. 

• As the RMP states, large game wildlife herds are increasing in population or are stable. This is an 

important indictor for the area as we seek the maximum natural gas development for the area. I 

hope the ROD will reflect this dynamic.

• Comment: BLM has failed to justify the need for large block NSO areas to protect wildlife 

habitat. According to Chapter 3, all population trends are stable or exceed population objectives 

for big game animals. Clearly, no new measures, particularly large blocks of NSO, are necessary 

to protect big game species since existing practices have ensured their health. 

Response: The data in the table represents the population trends of the entire Herd Unit, which should not 

be confused with the local population effects. The impacts of the PAPA or the Jonah developments may 

not translate into the Herd Unit population trends immediately. Furthermore, just because a Herd Unit is 

stable does not mean the local population is stable. Recent data indicate that, in particular, mule deer 

populations are significantly below the population objective. 

Comments: 

• On winter ranges, mule deer are easily disturbed by snowmobile traffic and even nonmotorized 

visitors (Freddy et al. 1996). This can be a critical factor, because metabolic costs of locomotion 

in snow can be five times as great as normal locomotion costs for mule deer (Parker et al. 1984). 

Thus, due to the sensitivity of mule deer to disturbance on winter ranges and the crucial nature of 

winter range performance to maintaining healthy deer populations, mule deer winter ranges must 

be withdrawn from all road construction and development, particularly oil and gas development, 

which would increase the level of human disturbance on these winter ranges. 

• Mule deer typically summer in montane forests and woodlands and use foothills areas for spring 

and fall transitional ranges, but typically winter in the low basins on BLM lands. Riparian areas 

are the primary summer range of mule deer (Compton 1974). The BLM should manage summer 

ranges for the benefit of mule deer populations. 

• The DEIS also fails to account for the important of mule deer transitional range. One study found 

that seasonal migrations of mule deer in the Green River Basin took as long as 90 days to 

complete, which reflects the importance of transition ranges to this mule deer herd. Sawyer et al. 

2005. Another study found that the Sublette mule deer herd is highly migratory and mule deer 

spend 5-6 months per year on transition ranges. Sawyer and Lindzey 2001. Although winter range 

is important to the survival of the herd, the importance of transitional range should not be 

ignored. This opinion is echoed in the DEIS itself by stating in reference to winter, summer and 

transitional range that “the loss or degradation of one will not be compensated for by the others, 

and the mule deer population will suffer in the long term” Pinedale RMP DEIS at 3-117. 

Although BLM recognizes the importance of transitional range, it does nothing to protect this 

important habitat.10 A study of big game species in the Green River Basin found that the most 

critical big game migration route was the Trapper’s Point bottleneck, which has been reduced to 

an effective width of <0.8-km. Sawyer et al. 2005. Because this vital migration route has already 

been significantly reduced by development, special attention should be paid to keeping it intact as 

small changes in land use or habitat alterations could potentially sever established migration 

routes. While Alternative 3 provides 9,540 acres for the Trapper’s Point Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC), BLM’s Preferred Alternative only allots 4,160 acres. Because 

A27-542 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

of the critical role of the Trapper's Point bottleneck in maintaining migratory populations of mule 

deer and pronghorn in the Pinedale planning area, the maximum area should be protected by 

ACED designation.

Response: Alternative 3 and all of the areas unavailable for leasing and NSO areas aim to effectively 

protect all big game habitats. 

Comments: 

• I think there are a few areas where your plan is lacking because of out-dated or old data. The sage 

grouse section may be the best example of that. Please have it peer reviewed. 

• I don’t know if I agree with the arguments being made about the sage grouse. I’d suggest you 

have more experts review it (peer review) before finalizing the RMP. 

Response: BLM did not conduct any sage-grouse studies for the purpose of the RMP revision. Sagegrouse studies were conducted by gas companies and independent researchers.

Unique Comments: 

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes 

Comment: PAGE: 4-182 SECTION: 4.17.3 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Habitat 

[loss,](STRIKEOUT) degradation, [fragmentation, and species displacement](STRIKEOUT) from 

approved linear features (e.g., power lines, roads, pipelines) and other permitted facilities would occur. 

Linear ROW features could [fragment habitat and](STRIKEOUT) disturb vegetation, increase erosion, 

and degrade the quality of riparian areas, watersheds, and habitats if features cannot be avoided or 

mitigated. Most impacts of short duration will limited effect. Impacts from buried pipeline construction 

could last for 30–40 years or more, depending on the time required for full reclamation of pre-disturbance 

vegetation, including sagebrush. EXPLANATION: Overstates impacts by huge margin. There may be 

habitat degradation but there may also be improvements, i.e. conversion from brush to palatable forage or 

improved sage brush stands. Power lines, pipelines do not “fragment habitat.” Assumptions omit 

identified benefits entirely making this a one-sided discussion and “chicken little.”

Response: The impact analysis is appropriate as stated in the draft EIS.

Comment: We find the current federal and state management of our wildlife resources to be reactive, 

with no clear plans to maintain, improve or restore habitats so vital to the future of our wildlife 

populations. Accordingly, we insist that the following corrective actions be considered and implemented: 

7. Exceptions should not be based on industry desires, but on biological data and proceed when deemed 

acceptable by scientific proof and review.

Response: Please see Appendix 8. These factors are taken into consideration when evaluating whether an 

exception should be granted or denied.

Comment: PAGE: G-22 - G-23 CHANGE: [SURFACE (HUMAN) DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITY – The 

physical presence sounds and movement of people and their activities that are likely to cause 

displacement of or excessive stress to wildlife during critical life stages (breeding, nesting, birthing) or 

during periods of severe winter weather conditions. Examples of disruptive activities include noise, 

traffic, or human presence regardless of the purpose of the activity. Stipulations to mitigate Disruptive 

Activities can be absolute or timingbased.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Restrictions on lesser, nonground disturbing impacts identified in the definition of disruptive activity regulate wildlife population, 

Pinedale RMP A27-543 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

not habitat. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), BLM is only charged with 

the management of fish and wildlife habitat, and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) has 

been delegated the authority to manage resident fish and wildlife resources in the State. 43 U.S.C. §§ 

1701(a)(8), 1732(b). BLM lacks authority to regulate many of the human activities. ACTIVITIES 

DISRUPTIVE TO WILDLIFE definition added to replace SURFACE (HUMAN) DISRUPTIVE 

ACTIVITY based on R. Taylor’s report. See above

Response: The definition is appropriate as given in the draft EIS.

Comment: Chapter 4 Page 192 1st paragraph Commentor WGFD The RMP needs to consider our 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies as directed by Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-114.

Response: BLM complies with state and national policy. 

Comment: Impacts to wildlife are not quantified. Will WDFD herd unit objectives be met? There is a lot 

of dancing around herd unit objectives in this section. While all alternatives predict gloom and doom for 

our wildlife, there is the potential to require best management (not just mention it as a potential if 

“practicable”), slow the pace of development, and delay further leasing until existing fields have been 

reclaimed. This would be the goal of a conservation alternative. The proof of the lack of such is in this 

impacts section.

Response: We acknowledge in the impacts analysis that there are impacts to the animals from these 

stresses, but we cannot determine at this time what the population impacts will be.

Comment: I have worked outdoors on federal lands during the last decade in Oregon, Washington, 

California, and Arizona, and have backpacked in the upper Green River Basin’s Wind River Range. In 

my years of exploration, I find that the wild and pristine places are too few and far between. In addition, 

there are patches of relatively unaltered lands scattered about the public land system. For someone who 

has field surveyed many areas altered by past clear cuts, historic mining, and other natural resource 

development activities, these small pockets, while not pristine, are also important for their wildlife and 

ecological values. Please consider these values when deciding on your proposed action. 

Response: Some of these small pocket areas are being considered ACECs for protection as SMAs, 

wilderness study areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Information about these protections can be found on 

pages 4-212 through 232

Comment: Commit to areas where preservation should be the dominate goal: migration corridors, critical 

winter ranges, buffer zones and edges of mesas! Honestly disclose habitat loss and enforce guidelines of 

rehabilitation to include SAGE, and slow drilling down until rehab is completed. 

Response: Protection will be afforded in the Unavailable Areas in addition to the ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas found on Map 2-32. 

Comment: The 1.2 million-acre Upper Green River Valley is the largest expanse of publicly owned 

winter wildlife habitat in Greater Yellowstone. The environmental impact of the project as proposed goes 

FAR beyond the actual footprint of the gas wells themselves. It would include roads, pipelines and 

transmission lines, harm crucial wildlife habitat, and could pollute the fisheries of the Green and New 

Fork rivers.

Response: Please see Cumulative Impacts to Wildlife and Fish Habitat pages 4-254 through 4-256.

A27-544 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: The following objectives are necessary to propagate Sublette County wildlife populations as 

we have known them in the recent past. They include the following: 4. Reclamation of our wildlife and 

human habitats should become priority items in the federal and state government agendas.

Response: Reclamation plans are developed at the project-specific EIS level.

Comment: Page: 2-148, Recommended Change: Delete and revise all of text for unavailable areas. 

Withdrawn [Unavailable] (strikeout) Areas Subject to a secretarial withdrawal, the withdrawn areas will 

be managed as follows: a. Consistent with lease terms and other legal rights, management actions on 

existing leases within the withdrawal [unavailable areas] (strikeout) would be designed to protect 

important habitats [by excluding surface occupancy and/or disturbance to] (strikeout) the extent this 

restriction does not violate the leaseholder’s/operator’s lease rights. [Management actions/projects 

designed to maintain or improve wildlife habitat would be excluded from this restriction.] (strikeout) 

Other permitted uses may continue. Explanation: Surface use and disturbance can be mitigated. The 

blanket assumption that all wildlife are harmed by surface use or human activities is false. 

Response: BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP. 

Comment: Page: 3-100-101, Section: 3.13.2, Recommended Change: Delete the entire Section of Other 

Special Status Species identified by The Nature Conservancy or listed in Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database. 

Explanation: The BLM manual provide for sensitive species management based upon state lists. DM 

6840 Special Status Species (1-17-2001). Special status species are “These are species which are 

proposed for listing, officially listed as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for listing as 

threatened or endangered under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA); those listed by a 

State in a category such as threatened or endangered implying potential endangerment or extinction; and 

those designated by each State Director as sensitive.” DM 6840.01. Sensitive species do not include those 

on The Nature Conservancy or University Wyoming list of native species. Nor does the University of 

Wyoming describe these species as “imperiled.” Thus these are not special status species and do not 

qualify for special status management. The Nature Conservancy is a private nonprofit without any legal 

standing to identify special status species. BLM guidelines for special status species do not provide for 

recognition of species identified by private groups. The manual does encourage BLM to develop 

cooperative partnerships and identified The Nature Conservancy as on such private sector group. DM 

6840.22C.3. Local governments are also identified as a separate group to be partners with BLM. Using 

The Nature Conservancy data base and failing to develop any partnership with other private sector groups 

such as the Wyoming Stockgrowers’ is just plain biased. The RMP lacks any data that these species are 

“locally or regionally rare or imperiled.” 

Response: The State of Wyoming sensitive species lists are maintained by the Wyoming Natural 

Diversity Database, a coordinated effort of the University of Wyoming and the Nature Conservancy. The 

species described in Chapter 3 are all considered imperiled within Wyoming. These species are not 

provided any special management in the Chapter 2 alternatives of the EIS; however, it is appropriate for 

BLM to acknowledge their possible presence in the planning area, which is what Chapter 3 does. BLM is 

unaware of any sensitive species lists maintained by the Wyoming Stockgrowers or any other private 

sector organization. 

Sage Grouse 

Comment: Page A5-2, “Avoidance of surface disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable sage-grouse 

nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within 2 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified sage-grouse 

nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 through July 15.” 

Pinedale RMP A27-545 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Comment: There appears to be no limit on regulating surface disturbance beyond the 2-mile buffer and 

arguably there is no basis for extending the 2-mile buffer. The current sage-grouse stipulations (1/4 mile 

NSO and 2-mile timing restriction) is adequate to maintain the species.

Response: The intent of the sage-grouse nesting restriction is to protect sage-grouse nesting habitat while 

the birds are actively nesting. The 2-mile radius is based on studies that indicate most of the nesting 

occurs within this zone. The studies also acknowledge that a percentage of the nesting occurs in areas 

more than 2 miles from a lek. This BMP provides for site-specific COAs to be applied when a project is 

proposed during the nesting period in areas outside the 2-mile radius when onsite inventory determines 

active nesting or evidence of past nesting. 

Comment: BLM Failed to Utilize Available Scientific Information. BLM itself has designated the 

Greater sage grouse as a “sensitive” species.12 Pinedale RMP DEIS at 3-123. In doing so, the agency 

made a commitment to use “all methods and procedures which are necessary to improve the condition of 

special status species and their habitats to a point where their special status recognition is no longer 

warranted.” BLM Manual 6840 at .01. Pursuant to BLM policy, “[l]and use plans shall be sufficiently 

detailed to identify and resolve significant land use conflicts with special status species without deferring 

conflict resolution to implementation-level planning.” Id. at .21J. The Preferred Alternative fails to meet 

these commitments. 

The Preferred Alternative in the DEIS opens nearly all significant sage grouse habitat to new leasing. 

Pinedale RMP DEIS, Maps 2-9 and 2-36. Moreover, the mitigation measures imposed on oil and gas 

development discussed for the Preferred Alternative in the DEIS are inadequate to prevent the downward 

trend of sage grouse populations in the planning area.13 BLM itself admits that the Preferred Alternative 

would subject sagebrush-obligate species to island effects, which could limit genetic diversity and 

population distributions. Furthermore, as discussed herein, BLM’s proposed mitigation of applying a 2-

mile buffer to leks in “Minimally Developed Areas” and, essentially, no buffer in “Intensively Developed 

Fields” will inadequately protect sage grouse leks across the planning area. 

The DEIS simply fails to make use of available scientific data that would aid BLM in evaluating, 

anticipating, and preventing impacts to sage grouse. Scientific data has shown that even a minimal level 

of development within 3-5 km of a sage grouse lek negatively influences breeding activity. In fact, recent 

information from a doctorate dissertation on the impacts of oil and gas development to Greater sage 

grouse in the Pinedale Anticline revealed that, as development increased, lek activity declined up to 

100%. Holloran (2005). Based on these findings, both Holloran (2005) and Connelly et al. (2000) 

recommend implementing at least a 5 km buffer around active sage grouse leks. 

Despite these recommendations, a ‘-mile NSO buffer around known sage grouse leks remains BLM’s 

mitigation measure of choice in Wyoming. NWF and WWF do not believe that this buffer is adequate to 

conserve Greater sage grouse and their habitat. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service repeatedly 

has stated that this 1⁄4 -mile buffer should not be considered as appropriate mitigation for sage grouse. 

Yet, BLM apparently will require no functional buffer around active sage grouse leks in “Intensively 

Developed Fields” within the Pinedale Resource Area. Instead, the only “actions” proposed to achieve the 

objective of ensuring “long-term species sustainability” and “functioning habitats” (Pinedale RMP DEIS 

at 2-143) are to “implement mitigation to minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of surface 

disturbing activities on greater sage grouse and to design and implement surface disturbing activities to 

minimize impacts on greater sage grouse habitats to the extent practicable.” Pinedale RMP DEIS at 2-

143. This “mitigation” to “minimize impacts” is too vague to meet the requirements of NEPA and 

inadequate to prevent unacceptable impacts to sage grouse. By choosing to implement no meaningful 

A27-546 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

mitigation in “Intensive Developed Fields,” BLM essentially is writing-off breeding populations in these 

areas. 

Response: As established in the 1988 Pinedale RMP, the entire planning area is open to oil and gas 

leasing, with the exception of the Wilderness Study Areas. The areas unavailable for leasing have been 

revised in the final EIS. The proposed plan does not “open” areas to new leasing; rather, it makes 435,000 

acres that were available for leasing under the 1988 RMP, unavailable to new leasing under the RMP 

revision. BLM is committed to conservation of sage-grouse and its habitat. 

BLM has reviewed the available scientific literature regarding sage-grouse and has incorporated 

protective measures for sage-grouse habitats to the extent possible. BLM has legal commitments to 

holders of valid, existing oil and gas leases. It is not possible to establish large, undeveloped buffers 

around sage-grouse leks in areas where a number of operators hold valid, existing oil and gas leases. 

It is not possible, with current technology and knowledge, to maintain functioning sage-grouse habitats on 

a meaningful scale in an intensively developed gas field. BLM must honor the lease rights of holders of 

existing valid oil and gas leases. The Proposed Plan attempts to provide, on a landscape scale, undisturbed 

habitats in the Unavailable for Leasing areas to maintain viable populations in the planning area during 

the period that the Intensive Fields are being developed and produced. Lek surveys and other monitoring 

suggest that young sage-grouse are dispersing from the fields and forming new leks in undeveloped areas. 

The Proposed Plan is intended to maintain these undeveloped areas as functioning sage-grouse habitats.

Comment: Road development can lead to lek abandonment (e.g., Braun 1986). In western Wyoming, 

Lyon (2000) found that for sage grouse leks within 3 km of oil and gas developments, grouse hens 

successful at raising their broods selected habitats farther from roads than unsuccessful hens. This finding 

indicates that habitats near roads experience reduced brood survivorship. Thus, we seek a moratorium on 

all road-building within 3 miles of a lek site.

Response: Page 2-144 states that vehicular activity would be limited to existing roads and trails, and 

transportation planning is required within 5 years of ROD, page 2-135.

Comment: The following information is provided for your use in the evaluation of proposed actions and 

their potential effects to the sage-grouse. The Service has determined that the greater sage-grouse is 

unwarranted for listing at this time. However, the Service continues to have concerns regarding sagegrouse population status, trends and threats, as well as concerns for other sagebrush obligates. Greater 

sage-grouse are dependent on sagebrush habitats year-round. Habitat loss and degradation, as well as loss 

of population connectivity have been identified as important factors contributing to the decline of greater 

sage-grouse populations rangewide (Braun 1998, Wisdom et al. 2002). Therefore, any activities that result 

in loss or degradation of sagebrush habitats that are important to this species should be closely evaluated 

for their impacts to sage-grouse. Around important breeding habitat (leks, nesting or brood rearing 

habitat), the Service recommends no project-related disturbance from March 1 through June 30, annually. 

Minimization of disturbance during lek activity, nesting, and brood rearing is critical to sage-grouse 

persistence within these areas. Likewise, if important winter habitats are present, the Service recommends 

no project-related disturbance from November 15 through March 14. 

We recommend you contact the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGF'D) to identify important 

greater sage-grouse habitats within the project area, and appropriate mitigative measures to minimize 

potential impacts in the RMP planning area. The Service recommends surveys and mapping of important 

greater sage-grouse habitats where local information is not available. The results of these surveys should 

be used in project planning, to minimize potential impacts to this species. No project activities that may 

exacerbate habitat loss or degradation should be permitted in important habitats. 

Pinedale RMP A27-547 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

In Wyoming, information suggests that greater sage-grouse populations are negatively affected by energy 

development activities, especially those that degrade important sagebrush habitat, even when mitigative 

measures are implemented (Braun 1998, Lyon 2000, Naugle et al. 2006). Greater sage-grouse populations 

can repopulate areas developed for resource extraction after habitat reclamation for the species (Braun 

1987). However, there is no evidence that populations attain their previous levels and reestablishment of 

sage-grouse in a reclaimed area may take 20 to 30 years, or longer (Braun 1998). Recent information 

from a doctoral dissertation on the impacts of oil and gas development to greater sage-grouse in the 

Pinedale. Anticline found that as development increased, lek activity declined up to 100 percent (Holloran 

2005). Therefore, the authorized activities under the RMP should be carefully evaluated for long-term and 

cumulative effects on the greater sage-grouse, since reclamation may not restore populations to preactivity levels. The Bureau should ensure activities authorized under the Pinedale RMP do not exacerbate 

greater sage-grouse declines on either a local or range-wide level. 

In 2000, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau, and the Service signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) to conserve the greater 

sage-grouse and its habitat. This MOU outlined the participation of Federal and State wildlife agencies, 

including the WGFD, in greater sage-grouse conservation, and these commitments should be considered 

in project planning in sage-grouse habitat. Additionally, unless site-specific information is available, 

greater sage-grouse habitat should be managed following the guidelines by Connelly et al. 2000 (also 

known as the WAFWA guidelines). The WAFWA guidelines state that energy-related facilities should be 

located greater than 2 miles from active leks unless the habitat is mapped.

Response: BLM is working with WGFD on identifying and mapping greater sage-grouse habitats within 

the planning area. BLM will comply with the MOU with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies (WAFWA) to conserve the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. 

Comment: Page 2-70 of the Draft RMP states that vehicular activities in suitable greater sage-grouse 

nesting, early brood rearing, and winter concentration areas would be limited to existing roads and trails 

during dates established for sage-grouse activity. The BLM needs to better define the phrase “existing 

roads and trails.” Does the phrase pertain to roads and trails in existence as of the date the RMP is 

adopted, or roads and trails in existence as of the date the seasonal stipulation takes effect each year? If 

the prohibition relates to roads and trails in existence when the RMP is released, the BLM has effectively 

eliminated ROWs across significant portions of the planning area. Further, the statement on page 2-71 

that states “no seasonal restrictions would be applied to development in greater sage-grouse lekking, 

nesting, early brood rearing, or winter habitats,” appears to conflict with a statement on page 2-70 

indicating that seasonal stipulations would be applied to roads. The BLM should resolve this 

inconsistency in the Final EIS.

Response: These definitions are explained in Chapter 3, page 3-89 and do not just apply to recreational 

activities. This designation is applied to prevent vehicle use cross-country during the sage-grouse nesting 

and brood rearing season. The statement on page 2-70 intends to protect important sage-grouse habitats to 

the extent possible when developing access roads to new wells. 

Comment: Management of sagebrush habitats to benefit sage-grouse is not considered. 

Response: The reasoning behind the areas unavailable for leasing and the NSO areas is to provide intact 

sagebrush habitats for sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligates.

Comment: Further, most of the areas used by sage-grouse in severe winters should be included in 

ACECS. 

A27-548 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Response: These areas are currently being delineated by BLM and WGFD. The ACEC designation does 

not prohibit development in areas that are already leased or under production. BLM felt that making areas 

unavailable for leasing or at minimum designating NSO areas would provide more protection than the 

ACEC designation.

Comment: We find the current federal and state management of our wildlife resources to be reactive, 

with no clear plans to maintain, improve or restore habitats so vital to the future of our wildlife 

populations. Accordingly, we insist that the following corrective actions be considered and implemented: 

3. Sage grouse habitat requirements should be placed above. all conflicting uses. These birds are 

sagebrush obligates and are most surely headed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. If state and 

federal agencies could manage sage grouse populations effectively, the mule deer and pronghorn antelope 

populations would thrive.

Response: BLM will comply with the WAFWA MOU to conserve the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. 

Comment: The literature cited in the DEIS on sage-grouse is not adequate nor current as Braun et al. 

(2002) is not cited on the impacts of oil and gas activities on sage-grouse, Rowland (2004) is not cited on 

effects of habitat management practices, Schroeder et al. (2004) is not cited on overall distribution of 

sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats, Connelly et al. (2004) on overall status of sage-grouse is not cited, 

and the multiple peer-reviewed publications of M. J. Holloran outside of his Thesis (1999) and 

Dissertation (2005)are not cited.

Response: Updates to the sage-grouse information in Chapter 3 have been made in the final EIS.

Comment: Overall, the DEIS fails to take a “hard look” at all of the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental consequences of the development that will result from the preferred Alternative. The DEIS 

does not meet the conditions of professional integrity concerning sage-grouse issues as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

Response: The impact analysis has been enhanced in the final EIS

Comment: All of the Alternatives will lead to further declines in numbers of Greater sage-grouse (36 leks 

are already inactive) (Map 2-28) and will lead to further extirpation of local populations of this BLM 

‘Sensitive’ species.

Response: The impact analysis acknowledges that there will be impacts to sage-grouse.

Comment: Many areas proposed for gas production in the western United , States, including the Pinedale 

Resource Area, have been among the most productive for sagebrush-dependent wildlife, especially sagegrouse. Thus, increased development of energy resources in sagebrush steppe habitats has the potential 

toy and has negatively affected sage-grouse. The Draft EIS for the Pinedale RMP should recognize and 

analyze this fact to a much greater extent to create a land use„ plan that will be useful for decision-making 

targeted at protecting and maintaining-populations of greater sage-grouse and their habitats. 

Response: The impact analysis acknowledges that there will be impacts to sage-grouse.

Comment: There is substantial recent information available about sage-grouse in southwest Wyoming 

(Holloran 1999, 2005, and resulting peer-reviewed publications; Lyon 2000). These data are only lightly 

covered in the DEIS.

Response: The impact analysis in the final EIS has been updated to include more recent information.

Pinedale RMP A27-549 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Comment: The available data that have been mapped in the DEIS are those on location of leks with a 

general overlay of brood and suspected nesting and brood-rearing use areas based on 2-3 mile concentric 

circles from known lek sites. However, there is solid knowledge (Lyon 2000, Holloran 2005) about sagegrouse habitat use outside of the lek locations in the Pinedale RMP area. These data are sufficiently 

precise for meaningful use, especially for spring, nesting, and brood rearing habitat.

Response: BLM and WGFD are in the process of collecting sage-grouse seasonal habitat use information 

on a landscape scale throughout the planning area.

Comment: The most important areas are those used in winter, for nesting, and for brood use. Emphasis 

has been placed on breeding areas (lek locations) as these sites are relatively easy to locate. However, 

number of active leks is dependent on winter survival and recruitment of yearlings produced in the 

previous year. Recruitment of yearlings is driven by nest success. Thus the overall quality of all 

components of sage-grouse habitat is key to maintaining populations over time (Connelly et al. 2000). 

Focus on breeding areas tends to ignore the other important components of sage-grouse habitats that are 

probably even more important to sustaining overall distribution and population size.

Response: The goals and objectives of this RMP are to maintain functionality and sustainability of 

habitats for all of the sage-grouse’s life stages. At this time we do not have landscape scale habitat use 

information throughout the Upper Green River Basin so the geographic information systems (GIS) 

analysis created for the maps in Volume 2 were based on the 2-mile sage-grouse nesting buffer from the 

lek. 

Comment: Winter-Maps showing the location of sage-grouse winter use areas in the Pinedale Resource 

Area are not shown in the 1DEIS. Focus should immediately be placed on locating and mapping sagegrouse winter-use areas throughout the RMP area. This should have the highest priority, as over winter 

survival is critical to population maintenance (Beck 1977, Zablan et al. 2003). Without over winter' 

survival, all other needs of sage-grouse become extraneous. Detailed maps should e prepared for both 

“average” or “normal” winters and severe winters which happen every 7-10 years. 

Response: BLM and WGFD are currently creating these maps, and the decisions will be updated to 

protect sage-grouse winter concentration areas.

Comment: Once these winter use areas are located and mapped; they should be described using standard 

measures for live sagebrush canopy cover, height, etc. following the approach of Connelly et al. (2000). 

Once identified, these areas must receive special attention (for example, designation as “Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern”) to reduce or prevent disturbance during winter, wild fire, and management 

activities that make them less useful to sage-grouse. Special attention should be given to any disturbance 

that reduces amount of live sagebrush, leaf surface, canopy cover, and height.

Response: The ACEC designation does not prohibit development in areas that are already leased or under 

production. However, these areas will receive special attention when outlining habitat management goals 

(especially if surface disturbing actions are proposed) to prevent actions that would remove these habitats 

from the landscape.

Comment: The BLM has the ability to readily identify sage-grouse winter-use areas following these 

scientific papers and should rapidly do so before identifying zones for Intensively Developed Fields, 

Minimally developed Areas, Large Block NSO Areas, and Unavailable Areas (pages2-143-146).

Response: BLM and WGFD are currently creating these maps and the decisions will be updated to 

protect sage-grouse winter concentration areas.

A27-550 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: 2. Leks-The available data on leks in the Pinedale Resource Area (not precisely identified in 

the DEIS) are quite robust but it is likely that not all active lek sites (116) have been located and the status 

(active, inactive [36? Map 2-28], < 2 years, > 2years) of many sites mapped is poorly known. Further, 

there are gaps (some leks have not been counted every year) in the count data, and the number of 

counts/lek in a given year obviously varies. The available long-term trend in numbers of cocks has 

declined as reported in the DEIS. Since active sage-grouse leks are relatively easy to locate during late 

March and April, standard surveys of all areas within the Pinedale Resource Area should be conducted in 

April 2008 and continuing at 3-year intervals. All known lek sites should be checked for activity in spring 

2007. Those classified as active should be counted (number of cocks) 3-4 times each spring at 7-10 day 

intervals starting in late March-early April, depending upon weather conditions, and continuing into early 

May every year. Those classified as inactive should be checked in late April early May every 2-3 years to 

ascertain any change in status. UTM (or GIS) coordinates for all lek sites should be taken and plotted on 

base maps.

Response: BLM and WGFD are currently using the methodology you have stated in this comment.

Comment: 3. Nesting-Adequate recent data on areas used for sage-grouse nesting in the Pinedale 

Resource Area does exist (but are not presented in the DEIS outside of general 2-3 mile concentric circles 

around leks) in specific areas (Lyon 2000, Holloran 2005) Because sage-grouse have been shown to nest 

at a variety of distances from active leks and use a variety of microsites for nest placement, it is difficult 

to identify all nesting areas. Thus, the Connelly et al. (2000) Guidelines should be followed to offer some 

protection to habitats useful for nesting at distances up to 3-4 miles from active leks. Since most actual 

nesting occurs within this distance (Braun et al. 1977, Hausleitner 2003) (with some nests at much greater 

distances, Lyon 2000), it is most reasonable to depict nesting habitat as all sagebrush areas with > 10% 

live canopy cover of sagebrush (primarily A. tridentata vaseyanq„ A. t. wyomingensis, A. tripartita, A. 

nova, and A. cana depending upon location) antra healthy understory of native grasses and forbs that are 

within this distance from c, leks. Since active lek sites can be located, identifying concentric areas within 

a 4-mile radius (Hausleitner 2003) around each lek site will include most nesting sites and is presently the 

only reasonable method to map potential nesting areas.

Response: BLM and WGFD are in the process of collecting sage-grouse seasonal habitat use and 

understory sage canopy structure to better protect nesting habitats beyond the 2-mile radius marker.

Comment: 4. Brood-rearing -Broods, upon hatching, use areas close to the locations of successful nests 

and progressively move towards moist areas upon desiccation of vegetation in the uplands. Review of the 

available data (in the DEIS) suggests only general knowledge exists of where broods have been observed 

despite the work of Lyon (2000) and Holloran (2005). Brood data appear to not have been mapped in 

relation to known sources of water (at ground level) or at riparian sites along streams, springs, etc. This 

should be done so that additional management consideration can be given to these areas. Management 

that should be in place includes movement of livestock to avoid degradation of plant communities in 

moist sites and riparian areas, and fencing to allow livestock access to water only in sites where erosion 

and plant community degradation would not be expected or could be controlled.

Response: These efforts are being conducted in areas beyond the Lyon (2000) and Holloran (2005) study 

sites, Much of the riparian habitats mentioned occur within private land ownership. Watershed function, 

specifically stream and riparian habitats, are managed by all disciplines. All degradation issues whether 

from livestock or excess surface waters are mitigated to achieve watershed functionality. 

Comment: Early brood survival is believed to be a problem throughout Wyoming (Draft Wyoming 

Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan 2002). Early brood survival is most affected by insect and 

succulent forb availability within secure (good hiding cover provided by grasses and forbs) habitats 

Pinedale RMP A27-551 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

(Connelly et al. 2000). Late brood rearing habitat is primarily in close proximity (< 1 mile) of sites with 

moisture and succulent forbs adjacent to escape cover provided by live sagebrush (Connelly et al. 2000). 

The Pinedale RMP DEIS should identify all potential brood-use areas or provide a mechanism for 

identifying them and make provision for protecting them because of their crucial role in the sage-grouse 

life cycle. Brood-use areas are closely tied to moisture (wet seeps, springs, riparian areas, water 

developments for livestock, etc.) which supports green forage (primarily forbs). These areas can be 

readily located and can be easily mapped. The Pinedale DEIS RMP should present a plan for obtaining 

maps that depict areas useful to sage-grouse broods.

Response: BLM and WGFD are currently creating these maps, and the decisions will be updated to 

protect sage-grouse brood-rearing areas.

Comment: In addition to the already substantial oil and gas development impacts, there are the ! additive 

effects of livestock grazing, power line and road placement, ranch building; placement, and past 

management treatments of sagebrush steppe areas to improve forage for livestock. All of these factors 

(and many more) have cumulative effects 2-on ecosystem health and trends in numbers of all animals that 

are dependent upon the sagebrush steppe. Teasing apart the specific impacts is not possible without 

detailed analysis of existing data followed by replicated studies. What is clear is that continuing practices 

presently in place or those proposed (large increases in number of wells and associated infrastructure) will 

not improve conditions for or knowledge about local populations of sage-grouse. They will only lead to 

continued decline in health of the sagebrush habitat and in the distribution (the area of useful habitat is 

markedly decreasing) and abundance of sage-grouse. The Pinedale RMP DEIS should acknowledge these 

conditions and facts, analyze their consequences in view of the proposed management, and institute 

actions to prevent negative impacts to sage-grouse.

Response: Many of the factors mentioned are currently being researched and will have implications to 

future management strategies. The purpose of adaptive management is to be able to apply current research 

immediately. 

Comment: Long-term monitoring efforts (20-30 years at the minimum and most likely through the life of 

the gas and oil development, i.e., 50-60 + years) and research studies to tease apart the specific impacts of 

energy development and other multiple use activities are critically needed in the Pinedale Resource Area. 

These efforts should focus on public lands (and include immediately adjacent private and State lands) and 

be funded by Federal land management agencies, the oil and gas industry, and the livestock industry. 

Monitoring is briefly mentioned (Appendix 11) but no mention is made of what procedures will be 

followed if sage-grouse populations continue to decline. 

Response: The efforts mentioned are current and ongoing. BLM will apply the best available science to 

manage sage-grouse habitats.

Comment: Scientific study has not identified a minimum viable population size or specific habitat size 

requirement for any population of sage-grouse. Further, habitat quality varies greatly depending upon soil 

factors, aspect, elevation, moisture, temperatures, management prescriptions, past and present uses, etc. 

Thus, there is no one definition or description of habitat quality that fits all situations as it is known that 

some sage-grouse populations persist in extremely degraded and marginal appearing habitats. It is also 

hypothesized that such populations are at great risk of extirpation as populations in similar habitat 

conditions have completely disappeared. Therefore, because of the difficulties in determining minimum 

viable population size and defining key habitat parameters for sage-grouse, it is imperative that a 

conservative approach is taken towards management of activities that could compromise sage-grouse 

habitat and fragment local populations. A reasonable conservative approach would be to adopt the 

Connelly et al. (2000) Guidelines in terms of distances around active leks for no surface occupancy, 

A27-552 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

residual cover to encourage nest success, etc. These Guidelines are based on the best science available at 

that time (2000). Recent publications from northwest Colorado (Hausleitner 2003) and the Pinedale area 

in Wyoming (Holloran 2005) have verified and improved the state of the available knowledge. The 

Guidelines and the recent publications cited are based on data and are peer-reviewed unlike most of the 

material presented in the Pinedale RMP DEIS.

Response: A conservation approach is being taken in the areas unavailable for leasing, as well as the 

NSO areas proposed. Additional management strategies will be developed if other uses conflict and sagegrouse continue to decline.

Comment: Problems with defining minimum viable population size or describing habitat quality are 

compounded with the addition of consideration of the effects of predation. Highways, roads, and power 

lines, for example, degrade habitat quality by increasing fragmentation, noise, and dust while attracting 

generalist predators and making search (by predators) of more linear areas and smaller habitat patches 

easier. Further, data on number and type of predators prior to apparent changes in habitat quality are not 

available nor are past or present predation rates in designed studies with treatments and controls. In 

general, predation events on birds are believed (reviewed by Cote and Sutherland 1997) to be affected by 

habitat quality no matter how it is defined. It is logical that prey animals are more secure in undisturbed 

habitats that have low fragmentation and better shrub structure coupled with a diverse understory of 

grasses and forbs. Adding structures such as--buildings, power lines, fences, and creating smaller, less 

diverse patches of habitats within the sagebrush steppe intuitively benefits potential predators of sagegrouse.

Response: These issues are considered and mitigated at the EIS and site-specific planning levels.

Comment: Review of existing documents for the Pinedale Resource Area indicates the BLM has 

consistently ignored sage-grouse needs and the scientific literature upon which developed guidelines 

(Braun et a1.1977, Connelly et al. 2000) to maintain sage-grouse populations are based. Most seriously, 

the BLM has chosen a 0.25-mile distance from active leks for avoidance of or restrictions on development 

even though the scientific literature (Holloran 2005) indicates there should be no manipulation of 

sagebrush habitats within 3 miles of active leks (Connelly et al. 2000). The 0.25-mile restriction seems to 

have been created to justify existing practices and is not based on any reputable science. The BLM's own 

analysis (see Pinedale Anticline Project Draft EIS 1999: 5-34 as an example) (also Holloran 2005) reports 

that, “of leks with at least one well within a 0.25-mile radius, four times as many are inactive than active" 

and that "more than three times as many leks with at least one oil or gas well within a 0.50-mile radius are 

inactive”. Oil and gas well site development as well as development of roads, power lines, etc. all cause 

manipulation of habitat and reduction in area useable to sage-grouse. 

Response: BLM has complied with the WAFWA MOU in formulating management for sage-grouse 

habitats.

Comment: Further, BLM documents (for example, Atlantic Rim Coalbed Methane Projects, Cow Creek 

Pod and most other DEIS documents in Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado) indicate, “exceptions [for any 

restrictions] may be granted if the activity will occur in unsuitable [nesting = breeding] habitat”. This type 

of language (Appendix 2 and elsewhere) continues to be used in the DEIS for the Pinedale Resource Area 

without any scientific explanation of why habitats may be “unsuitable” (for sage-grouse). Appendix 12 of 

the DEIS, Seasonal Wildlife Stipulation by Alternatives, is inadequate, even for Alternative 3. The other 

Alternatives almost completely ignore greater sage-grouse needs (especially Alternative 2). The 

stipulations presented, especially when one realizes that all can be waived by the Authorized Officer, fail 

to meet any reasonable standard for content or scientific merit. The effect of this failure to provide 

adequate mitigation of the impacts on sage-grouse could be the extirpation of sage-grouse in large 

Pinedale RMP A27-553 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

portions of the Upper Green River Valley as the footprint (Connelly et al. 2004) of the present and 

planned activities is without precedence.

Response: Habitats may be unsuitable for a number of reasons including lack of sagebrush cover, 

presence of previous disturbance, unsuitable vegetation types. More information on this topic has been 

added to the final EIS.

Comment: The Alternatives (pages 2-99 to 101, 2-143 to 146) attempt to reassure readers the DEIS has 

given adequate thought to maintaining sage-grouse --populations by planning to manage by Intensively 

Developed Fields (where sage grouse will have no status), Minimally Developed Areas (which retain the 

0.25 mi NSO restriction around leks which has been demonstrated to be negative for sage-grouse), Large 

Block NSO Areas (which retain the 0.25 mi NSO restriction around leks and which will eventually also 

be open for oil and gas development activity), and a nebulous category of Unavailable Areas which will 

essentially have the same management as Minimally Developed Areas and Large Block Areas. My 

professional view is that this is just shuffling names to try to indicate that sage-grouse and their important 

habitats are being favorably managed. As far as can be determined from the DEIS, it is highly probable 

that all areas will be developed for oil and gas if there is any evidence that oil and gas may occur on any 

parcel or tract.

Response: More information on how the oil and gas management areas would work and the requirements 

for allowing development in NSO areas or leasing in unavailable areas has been added to the final EIS. It 

is BLM’s intent that the unavailable areas remain unavailable for leasing to provide wildlife habitat and 

other values during development of the current active gas fields. Similarly, it is BLM’s intent that the 

NSO areas not contain surface developments. 

Comment: As part of its mitigation guidelines and standard practices for surface disturbing activities 

(i.e., Fluid Minerals, Appendix 5 and elsewhere), BLM has generally imposed restrictions on activity 

within 2-3 miles of leks before the 8:00 AM and after 8:00 PM interval from 15 March through 15 July 

(to benefit nesting females and broods) within 2-3 miles from leks depending upon Alternative (Pinedale 

DEIS, Appendix 5, Best Management Practices). There are many inconsistencies (based on specific 

Alternatives) in the DEIS on restrictions which are promoted as benefiting sage-grouse (pages 2-100 to 

101, 2-143 to 146). Only those presented for Alternative 3 may have some merit for sage-grouse. These 

stipulations and or restrictions in Alternative 3 should be the minimum for all Alternatives if sage-grouse 

are to persist in the Pinedale Resource Area. These stipulations must be enforced during the breeding and 

nesting periods as there is little monitoring of adherence to restrictions and those in place can be modified 

or excepted by the Authorized Officer.

Response: BLM has complied with the WAFWA MOU in formulating management for sage-grouse 

habitats.

Comment: In actual practice, there is little protection from physical disturbance of habitats useful to 

sage-grouse nesting outside of the inadequate 0.25-mile radius from active leks. Most critically, there is 

no recognition of the importance of sage-grouse winter use habitat and no stipulations to help protect 

these habitats. The BLM also fails to adequately address the cumulative effects on sage-grouse of all 

treatments (not limited to oil and gas developments). It is clear, based on my professional experience and 

the Connelly et al. (2004) analyses that actions that are underway and are planned will seriously threaten 

and endanger the health and persistence of greater sage-grouse in the Pinedale Resource Area.

Response: BLM has complied with the WAFWA MOU in formulating management for sage-grouse 

habitats.

A27-554 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: Nowhere is there mention of the possible negative effects of seismic activities. It appears the 

BLM has avoided recognition of short-term effects of trails, crushing of vegetation, and direct and 

indirect impacts to sage-grouse from use of large vehicles involved in this activity. Unfortunately, there 

apparently have been no studies on the immediate impacts of seismic activities. Until demonstrated 

otherwise, seismic activities should be considered as factors that are negative for sagebrush habitats as 

they provide trails for increased predator access, they fragment habitats useful to sage-grouse, they 

decrease live sagebrush and fortis needed by sage-grouse, and could potentially disrupt breeding and 

nesting activities. BLM should require the oil and gas industry to fund well-designed scientific research 

on the effects of seismic activities on sage-grouse and their habitats. Protective steps should be 

immediately taken based on the findings of these studies including those of Holloran (2005). 

Response: A discussion of the impact of seismic activity has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: Present mitigation measures to protect sage-grouse and their habitats in the Pinedale Resource 

Area DEIS are minimal (Appendix 2-3) and only relate to stipulations or restrictions on activity. None of 

the mitigation protocols is true mitigation, the protocols are not specific to actual mitigation and they are 

not mitigation for any past or present losses. The protocols have little scientific basis even for reclamation 

(Appendix 3-9) as there is no apparent intent to reclaim land to be useful for sage-grouse throughout the 

year for all life processes. The BLM should endorse and follow the “Guidelines to manage sage grouse 

populations and their habitats” (Connelly et al. 2000). The Guidelines are based on scientific, peerreviewed studies which have been found to be conservative (Hausleitner 2003, Holloran 2005). Neither 

industry nor the BLM has been quick to adopt the Connelly et al. (2000) guidelines nor the findings of 

Hausleitner (2003) and Holloran (2005) because their implementation, while very useful for sage-grouse 

conservation, would affect the direction of the BLM oil and gas leasing program and industry practices. 

Response: BLM has complied with the WAFWA MOU in formulating management for sage-grouse 

habitats.

Comment: Consideration should also be given to following the concluding comments of Braun et al. 

(2002) that strongly recommend that it is the responsibility of the oil and gas industry to demonstrate their 

activities have no negative impacts initially, short-term, or over the long-term. Effective mitigation 

practices, in addition to those in the Guidelines (Connelly et al. 2000), include permanent and seasonal 

road closures, burial and or modification of power lines, removal or modifications of fences and other 

structures, fertilization of sage-grouse winter ranges with nitrogen, and reduction or complete permanent 

elimination of other uses such as livestock grazing, especially on areas where oil and gas production is 

permitted. Mitigation should also consider those impacts that can be reasonably expected including 

cumulative (with other factors) effects. Full mitigation would require increasing the number (on a per unit 

basis) of sage-grouse in non-affected areas to equal the reduction in numbers of sage-grouse in affected 

areas. Research on developing methodology to enhance sagebrush habitats (to support higher densities of 

sage-grouse) should also be productive.

Response: Many of these mitigation standards are currently being implemented. Industry is currently 

contesting peer-reviewed research on the effects of energy development to sage-grouse populations. BLM 

is committed to working with the grazing permittees on implementing strategies that are ecologically 

sound and will increase sage-grouse nesting success. 

Comment: To further mitigate the impacts from the significant oil and gas developments that are in place 

and being planned for the Pinedale Resource Area, the BLM should also designate, as part of the RMP 

revision process, multiple Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) to protect at least 90% of 

sage-grouse winter use areas. The boundaries of these areas should follow the results of Recommendation 

# 1 (Winter) on page 4. These areas will be critical to maintaining population persistence over time. I 

Pinedale RMP A27-555 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

strongly recommend that a full section be developed on mitigation practices to benefit greater sagegrouse. The lack of a full mitigation plan with strategies is a major flaw in the DEIS.

Response: An ACEC designation would not prohibit development in areas that are already leased or 

under production. It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level because the RMP will 

not directly authorize any on the ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, 

and the methods to be used must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. 

Appendix 3 contains mitigation measures and operating standards for sage-grouse habitats. The appendix 

will be updated over time as additional mitigation measures are developed. ACEC establishment for sagegrouse winter concentration areas is considered in the final EIS. 

Comment: Assessment of the long-term effects of any use or disturbance, especially oil and gas or other 

energy-related development, on sage-grouse and the health of the sagebrush steppe should be based on 

collection and analysis of population information in spring, collection and analysis of harvest information, 

and numbers of birds counted in selected winter habitat. Sage-grouse population statistics collected in 

spring are those related to number of active leks per unit of area and total number of cocks counted on a 

sample of randomly selected, statistically defensible accessible leks. Harvest data collection should focus 

on analysis of wings for changes in ratios of chicks/hen and males to females in both adult (including 

yearlings if not separable) and chick age classes. Once winter use areas are identified, standardized line 

transects should be established and annually sampled (using aircraft) following current sampling theory to 

estimate number of birds present. Sampling should occur immediately following fresh snowfall or during 

maximum snow accumulation

Response: WGFD currently uses these techniques to collect and analyze population trends. BLM will 

coordinate with WGFD habitat biologists on developing long-term transect in sage-grouse winter habitats.

Comment: Appendix 11, “Monitoring and Evaluation” appears to be the monitoring guidelines (Table A 

11-7) for the DEIS. The ‘trigger’ for action for sage-grouse is “Declining trend in the number of males 

and females” without any explanation of what will be done or how it will be monitored other than counts 

of birds on leks. This is totally inadequate for monitoring and evaluating habitat quality and quantity or 

for monitoring sage-grouse population health. It is notably deficient as it fails to demonstrate that 

scientific protocols will be used and the results will be properly evaluated. This again indicates the lack of 

emphasis placed on sage-grouse and apparent acceptance by the BLM of the potential extirpation of the 

species in this area. The evidence indicates this is already occurring as counts have gone to zero 

(abandoned) on 36 leks (Map 2-28).

Response: Monitoring of wildlife populations is generally conducted by the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD). In the case of sage-grouse, some joint monitoring with WGFD and BLM occurs. 

BLM would coordinate monitoring efforts with the WGFD and would use the proper protocols, as 

established at the time of survey. Much research on sage-grouse is being conducted, and monitoring 

protocols and management recommendations could change based on current research. BLM is committed 

to taking actions necessary for proper management of the greater sage-grouse.

Comment: The importance of sustained, long-term monitoring cannot be overstated. It is clear that oil 

and gas development will negatively affect sage-grouse populations (Braun et al. 2002, Holloran 2005) 

and only the magnitude of the impacts is unknown (some counts of males on leks in the Pinedale 

Resource Area have gone tii¬zero and 36 leks are inactive). The oil and gas industry should fund the 

monitorin and long-term research needed throughout the life of the RMP and the Pinedale RMP should 

make this a specific requirement in any new oil and gas development projects. This critical monitoring 

should continue until sage-grouse populations return to pre-disturbance levels, which could exceed 30 

years. Cause and effect„ studies using an active adaptive management approach (Walters 1986) are 

A27-556 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

necessary to fully understand the implications of oil and gas development on sage-grouse. The industry 

has the responsibility to demonstrate their activities have no negative impacts initially, short-term, or over 

the long-term on the distribution and abundance of sage-grouse in areas explored and developed for oil 

and gas production.

Response: BLM and WGFD have been conducting long-term monitoring efforts since the 1990s and will 

continue to do so. Research efforts are being funded by industry lead mitigation groups such as the Tom 

Thorne fund. However, there are mitigation efforts such as the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative that only 

has a small percentage of their coffers dedicated to research projects. Most of the wildlife mitigation 

groups are committing to on-the-ground projects and do not wish to fund research.

Comment: The DEIS for the Pinedale Resource Management Plan fails to attempt to incorporate even 

minimal suggestions on identification and protection of winter habitats, there is a lack of data on brood 

habitats, and there is no consideration of scientifically defensible buffers for NSO around active leks in 

the preferred alternative (#4). The discussion of Monitoring in the DEIS is minimal and consideration of 

mitigating impacts on sage-grouse is essentially non-existent. These problems need to be corrected to 

have a scientifically valid document, as well as one that will be useful for guiding management activities.

Response: Management actions in the Preferred Alternative are designed to protect sage-grouse habitats. 

Research and identification of habitats is a continuing process. Protections would be applied to habitats as 

they are identified.

Comment: None of the 4 Alternatives adequately describe or analyze the expected impacts on sagegrouse distribution and abundance within the Pinedale Resource Area as a result of any specific 

Alternative or the preferred Alternative. My professional judgment is that all Alternatives (including the 

No Action Alternative) will fail to slow or cause the long-term declines in sage-grouse populations to 

stabilize.

Response: We are unable to quantity specific population impacts on sage-grouse. 

Comment: Specific mitigation to benefit sage-grouse is rarely proposed other than some timing 

restrictions which have not been demonstrated to be effective, a 0.25-mile NSO restriction around active 

leks, and a 2-3 mile buffer around leks during the sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing periods. Further, 

all of stipulations and restrictions can be exempted, waived, or modified upon request of the operator 

despite suggestions that there would be no exceptions to wildlife stipulations. Use of Adaptive 

Management is not mentioned. These limitations strongly suggest that the proposed ‘itigation’ (which 

really is not true mitigation) will have little or no value for protecting, supporting, or sustaining sagegrouse in the Pinedale Resource Area.

Response: BLM has complied with the WAFWA MOU in formulating management for sage-grouse 

habitats.

Comment: It is important to note that Greater sage-grouse are a BLM ‘Sensitive’ species. Sage-grouse 

are listed in Appendix 9, Special Status Species, without any discussion as this Appendix is only a listing 

of species.

Response: Information on Special Status Species management has been added to Chapter 2 of the final 

EIS.

Comment: The Pinedale Resource Area DEIS should clearly identify the importance of this area for 

greater sage-grouse and the BLM must accept their responsibility in maintaining and enhancing habitats 

Pinedale RMP A27-557 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

on public lands within the Resource Area to ensure this species is not further considered for Federal 

listing under the Endangered Species Act. The DEIS for the Pinedale RMP clearly fails to present any 

scientific evidence that greater sage-grouse will benefit or even persist for the next 20 years under any of 

the four Alternatives described.

Response: The draft EIS adequately discloses impacts that would occur to sage-grouse over the projected 

life of the plan.

Comment: Recommended Mitigation Measures: 1. The BLM should adopt a policy of no surface 

disturbance within at least 3 miles of occupied leks as data (Holloran 2005) clearly show negative impacts 

to sage-grouse at the present distance of 0.25 miles and up to at least 3 miles. This is the minimum needed 

to maintain sage-grouse populations in this area.

Response: This restriction was included in Alternative 3 of the draft EIS. 

Comment: Recommended Mitigation Measures: 2. All areas used by sage-grouse during both average or 

“normal” and severe winters should be located, mapped, and given special protection from wild fire, 

manipulation of sagebrush, and human-induced disturbance. This is the minimum needed to maintain 

sage-grouse populations in this area. At least 90% of these newly mapped winter-use areas should be 

designated as a network of ACECs. 

Response: BLM and WGFD are currently creating these maps and the decisions will be updated to 

protect sage-grouse winter areas. ACEC establishment for sage-grouse winter concentration areas is 

considered in the final EIS. 

Comment: Recommended Mitigation Measures: 4. Management of mid to late summer brood-rearing 

areas should encourage forb regrowth while maintaining at least a 6 inch residual grass height with taller 

(> 24 inches in height), live sagebrush of > 15 % canopy cover in close (< 200. yds) proximity for use as 

escape cover. This is the minimum needed to maintain sage-grouse populations in this area.

Response: The effects of past treatments in terms of habitat structure and wildlife use are currently being 

studied. The information may be used to recommend grazing management and mitigation strategies to 

achieve the ecological site conditions you have outlined. 

Comment: Recommended Mitigation Measures: 5. Mitigation should be emphasized and required for all 

activities known to negatively impact sage-grouse. Mitigation measures could include, but are not limited 

to: burial or modification of power lines, off set drilling, road closures ands time restrictions, changes in 

livestock grazing, nitrogen fertilization of winter and nesting areas, removal or modification of existing 

fences, etc. Full mitigation would be to replace the exact number of sage-grouse impacted by 

development activities by increasing the number per unit of area that the remaining areas can support to °" 

equal the number displaced. This is the minimum needed to maintain sage-grouse populations in this area. 

Mitigation should be better identified within the DEIS with development of a specific section for sagegrouse. A realistic view of the length of time for reclamation as a mitigation tool to benefit sage-grouse 

should be presented.

Response: These suggestions have been added to the mitigation list in the final document. BLM will 

address mitigation of impacts to habitats, not population numbers.

Comment: Recommended Monitoring Requirements: 1. Standardized line transects in identified winter 

use areas should be established and annually sampled (using aircraft) following current sampling theory 

A27-558 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

to estimate changes in numbers of birds present. Sampling should immediately follow fresh snowfall or 

during maximum snow accumulation.

Response: BLM and WGFD are currently creating these maps based on this type of methodology.

Comment: Recommended Monitoring Requirements: 2. Standard surveys of all areas to locate active 

leks should be conducted in spring 2008 and continue at 3-year intervals. This will provide data on lek 

extinction and recruitment. This is the minimum needed to monitor sage grouse populations in this area.

Response: These efforts are currently being implemented.

Comment: Recommended Monitoring Requirements: 3. All potential mid to late summer brood-rearing 

areas should be mapped based on moisture and green forb availability during the late June through late 

August interval. Management of mid to late summer brood-rearing areas should encourage forb regrowth 

while maintaining at least a 6-inch residual grass height with taller (> 24 inches in height), live sagebrush 

of > 15% canopy cover in close (< 200 yds) proximity for use as escape cover.

Response: BLM and WGFD are currently creating these maps and the decisions will be updated to 

protect sage-grouse brood-rearing habitats.

Comment: Recommended Monitoring Requirements: 4. Leks classified as active should be counted 

(number of cocks present) 3-4 times each spring at 7-10 day intervals starting in late March-early April 

and continuing into mid May. Those leks classified as inactive should be checked in late April/early May 

every 2-3 years to ascertain change in status. This is the minimum needed to monitor sage grouse 

populations in this area.

Response: These efforts are currently being implemented.

Comment: Recommended Monitoring Requirements: 5. The vegetation in areas used by sage-grouse 

during both average and severe winters should be described as to live sagebrush canopy cover, height, etc.

Response: BLM will coordinate with WGFD habitat biologists on developing long-term transects in 

sage-grouse winter habitats.

Comment: Recommended Monitoring Requirements: 6. Harvest data based on examination of sagegrouse wings collected from hunters should continue on a well-defined population basis. Statistics needed 

to measure responses of sage-grouse to treatments and development activities are those relating to nest 

success, chicks per hen, and age/gender composition. This is the minimum needed to monitor sage-grouse 

populations in this area.

Response: These efforts are currently being implemented.

Comment: Analysis and Other Management Issues: 2. Replicated long-term studies are urgently needed 

to understand the effects of grazing practices and habitat fragmentation on predator numbers and 

predation rates on sage-grouse. These studies must involve treatments and controls on a landscape basis.

Response: A multiyear predator study is currently underway in the Upper Green River Basin to 

determine what role they may have in sage-grouse success.

Comment: Analysis and Other Management Issues: 3. Nesting areas are difficult to locate at a population 

or subpopulation scale and all area within 4 miles of active leks (Hausleitner 2003) should be considered 

Pinedale RMP A27-559 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

nesting and early brood-rearing habitats. This is the minimum needed to maintain sage-grouse populations 

in this area.

Response: Because of the quality of habitat within the planning area, we have considered all habitat 

within 4 miles of active leks as nesting and early brood-rearing habitats.

Comment: Analysis and Other Management Issues: 4. Early chick survival has been identified as a 

problem in Wyoming (and elsewhere). Enhancing the forb and grass component in nesting areas (which 

are also early brood rearing sites) should be a priority.

Response: This has been a priority of many of the mitigation projects proposed in the planning area.

Comment: Analysis and Other Management Issues: 5. The cumulative impacts of all human-induced 

activities within a given, defensible sage-grouse population unit should be studied over a period 

sufficiently long (at least 20-30 years) to be able to predict actual long- and short-term effects. When 

industry is involved in causing the impacts, they should be expected to fully support, financially, all 

studies as they have the burden to demonstrate their activities are not negative to sage-grouse.

Response: This information will be gathered by continuing to conduct yearly lek counts and population 

analysis.

Comment: Also, I’d suggest taking another look at your Sage Grouse data. Can you have some experts 

review it (peer review) before the final decision is made.

Response: The sage-grouse information was provided by WGFD in conjunction with research conducted 

in the planning area.

Comment: Sage Grouse Lek Locations and Identified Habitat: The Sage Grouse map illustrates how 

much area they utilize for brood rearing and nesting and a large Lek this is not shown on the draft RMP. 

There is an excellent habitat that combines a vast system of springs, riparian areas, sage brush cover, and 

forage which allows these birds to flourish in the area. The unique attributes of this area for sage grouse 

show how unsuitable leasing and mineral development is here.

Response: Sage-grouse lek maps have been updated in the final EIS. The areas unavailable for oil and 

gas leasing have been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: The last thing I hope you look at is the sage grouse section of the plan. I just don’t think your 

numbers are right and I hope you have it peer reviewed before making a final decision.

Response: The sage-grouse information was provided by WGFD in conjunction with research conducted 

in the planning area.

Comment: It is important however for those whose jobs it is to oversee the energy industry to use the 

most up to date and adequate data when proposing regulation on our industry. In addition it is important 

to draft regulations based on solid peer reviewed research and not to just follow the emotion of the week. 

I prime example of this is the incomplete data used to sage grouse population.

Response: The sage-grouse information was provided by WGFD in conjunction with research conducted 

in the planning area.

A27-560 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: The BLM is suggesting an increase in land protection for Sage Grouse where the NSO would 

grow from 1/4 mile to anywhere from 3 to 4 miles. What is the justification for such a large increase? Are 

such land use decisions appropriate in an RMP? Would it be better to review these decisions more on a 

project by project basis? Does science support the NSO designations and has the science been pier 

review? How much gas production will be lost with the expanded NSO stipulation and what are the 

socioeconomic ramifications?

Response: This information is substantiated by peer-reviewed research conducted by Allison Lyon 

(2000), Matt Holloran (2006), Rusty Kaiser (2006), and Walker et al. (2007) in the planning area. 

Information has been peer reviewed in Holloran, M.J. and S.H. Anderson, 2005, Spatial Distribution of 

Greater Sage-Grouse Nests in Relatively Contiguous Sagebrush Habitats, The Condor 107:742–752; and 

also in Holloran, M.J., B.J.Heath, A.G. Lyon, S.J. Slater, J.L. Kuipers, and S.H. Anderson, 2005, Greater 

sage-grouse nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming, Journal of Wildlife Management 

69(2):638-649.

Comment: I am concerned that some of the sage grouse science has not been pier reviewed. I think the 

BLM should seek more information prior to expanding NSO requirements from 1/4 mile buffers to the 

propose 3 to 4 mile buffers. The BLM must do a better job justifying such determinations in an RMP.

Response: This information has been peer reviewed in Holloran, M.J. and S.H. Anderson, 2005, Spatial 

Distribution of Greater Sage-Grouse Nests in Relatively Contiguous Sagebrush Habitats, The Condor 

107:742–752; and in Holloran, M.J., B.J.Heath, A.G. Lyon, S.J. Slater, J.L. Kuipers, and S.H. Anderson, 

2005, Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming, Journal of Wildlife 

Management 69(2):638-649.

Comment: Sage Grouse: Again there is a major difference between what the BLM shows and what the 

Wyoming Game and Fish shows regarding the Sage Grouse Map. Please look at Map 2-28 of the EIS and 

the enclosed “Sage Grouse Lek Locations and Identified Habitat” map. One clearly sees that the range is 

much further north on our ranch and according to our observation, is expanding. The most northern Lek 

in the Game and Fish report is not even included in the BLM map.

Response: Sage-grouse lek monitoring data are updated yearly. The decisions will be updated to reflect 

new information on sage-grouse habitat use.

Comment: Page Number & Issue: Chapter 1 1-8: “Populations of greater sage-grouse have declined in 

the planning area, and some intensively developed areas no longer provide functioning sage-grouse 

habitats.” Recommendations: Provide data source, citation and base of comparison or modify and/or 

delete statement.

Response: The data source is the WGFD 2007 sage-grouse data lek history reports.

Comment: The greater sage-grouse is presently hunted in Wyoming and it is illogical for this species to 

be both hunted and classified as a Special Status Wildlife Species. On page 3-123 under the BLM 

Sensitive Wildlife Species section, it is stated “Greater sage-grouse are the most numerous and 

widespread game bird within the planning area...” [Emphasis added] The current management model for 

these birds is nothing short of contradictory and we urge BLM to provide a clear framework for how these 

species and its habitats will be managed in the future. 

Response: BLM does not have authority over WGFD hunting regulations. 

Pinedale RMP A27-561 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Comment: Page Number & Issue:4-186: “Well densities exceeding one well per 699 acres are likely to 

lead to declines in male sage-grouse lek attendance (Holloran 2005). Overall declines in male lek 

attendance approached 100% when the distance from leks to drilling rigs, producing wells, and main haul 

roads decreased, in conjunction with the number of wells within 5 km and the total length of main haul 

roads within 3 km (attributed to traffic volume and vehicle activity during the strutting period) of the lek 

increased (Holloran 2005). Finally, active leks in energy-developed areas are experiencing a lack of 

yearling male recruitment. Assuming a yearly male mortality of 50%, a lek could become inactive in 4-6 

years if yearling sage-grouse recruitment does not occur (Kaiser 2006).” “Mineral development would 

likely deplete water from the Colorado River system.” Recommendations: Provide peer reviewed 

citations.

Response: Peer-reviewed citations supporting this information have been included in the final EIS. 

Comment: Page A5-2, “Avoidance of surface disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable sage-grouse 

nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within 2 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified sage-grouse 

nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 through July 15.” 

Comment - There appears to be no limit on regulating surface disturbance beyond the 2-mile buffer and 

arguably there is no basis for extending the 2-mile buffer. The current sage-grouse stipulation (1⁄4 mile 

NSO and 2-mile timing restriction) is adequate to maintain the species.

Response: BLM analyzed an appropriate range of alternatives. According to the following peer-reviewed 

scientific literature, the current restrictions are not adequate: Holloran, M. J. and S.H. Anderson, 2005, 

Spatial Distribution of Greater Sage-Grouse Nests in Relatively Contiguous Sagebrush Habitats, The 

Condor 107:742–752; Holloran, M.J., B.J. Heath, A.G. Lyon, S.J. Slater, J.L. Kuipers, S.H. Anderson, 

2005, Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming, Journal of Wildlife 

Management 69(2); 638-649; Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, B. L. Walker, and J. M. Graham, in press, 

Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development, Journal of Wildlife Management.

Comment: Page 2-70 of the Draft RMP states that vehicular activities in suitable greater sage-grouse 

nesting, early brood rearing, and winter concentration areas would be limited to existing roads and trails 

during dates established for sage-grouse activity. The BLM needs to better define the phrase “existing 

roads and trails.” Does the phrase pertain to roads and trails in existence as of the date the RMP is 

adopted, or roads and trails in existence as of the date the seasonal stipulation takes effect each year? If 

the prohibition relates to roads and trails in existence when the RMP is released, the BLM has effectively 

eliminated ROWs across significant portions of the planning area. Further, the statement on page 2-71 

appears to conflict with a statement on page 2-70 of the RMP DEIS that states “no seasonal restrictions 

would be applied to development in greater sage-grouse lekking, nesting, early brood rearing, or winter 

habitats. The BLM should resolve this inconsistency in the Final EIS.

Response: This statement does not mean that new access roads would not be permitted if necessary. This 

has more to do with off-road vehicles including surveyors going off road during the sage-grouse seasonal 

restrictions and further impacting sage-grouse offspring and habitats.

Comment: The restrictions on development attributable to wildlife objectives under Alternative 3 are 

unnecessarily restrictive. In both Intensively Developed Fields and Minimally Developed Areas the BLM 

would unreasonably restrict development. For example, limiting vehicle use to existing roads and trails 

within even intensively developed fields is unreasonable and unnecessary, particularly if portions of those 

fields are currently undeveloped. Requiring NSO stipulations within three miles of sage grouse leks is 

similarly unnecessary and conflicts with current BLM state-wide policy. Although the BLM intends to 

limit activities within sage-grouse winter concentration areas, the BLM has not mapped or identified such 

areas.

A27-562 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Response: According to the following peer-reviewed scientific literature, the current restrictions are not 

adequate: Holloran, M. J. and S.H. Anderson, 2005, Spatial Distribution of Greater Sage-Grouse Nests in 

Relatively Contiguous Sagebrush Habitats, The Condor 107:742–752; Holloran, M.J., B.J. Heath, A.G. 

Lyon, S.J. Slater, J.L. Kuipers, S.H. Anderson, 2005, Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat selection and 

success in Wyoming, Journal of Wildlife Management 69(2): 638-649; Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, B. 

L. Walker, and J. M. Graham, in press, Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy 

development, Journal of Wildlife Management. Winter concentration maps are currently being developed 

by BLM and WGFD and the record of decision will be updated upon completion.

Comment: Data used to address sage grouse population is incomplete and should be reviewed prior to 

next draft - used data that was not peer reviewed to make decisions - in certain areas they suggest 

increasing the NSO from 1/4 mile to 3 or 4 miles which would be very difficult.

Response: The sage grouse data used for the draft EIS was the best available information to date. The 

analysis has been updated in the final EIS to include new research.

Comment: The RMP DEIS does not fully evaluate or protect the crucial ranges of sage grouse, wintering, 

lek areas, nesting, and brood rearing, all of which must be provided in suitable condition to maintain sage 

grouse populations. 

• Minimum viable population sizes have not be adequately determined or analyzed. 

• BLM continues to adhere to a 0.25 mile development exclusion perimeter around leks even 

though the scientific literature shows this has no validity and that a 3 mile perimeter is needed. 

• Monitoring provisions for sage grouse need to be substantially improved. 

• There is a special need to identify winter concentration areas and fully protect them. 

Response: No one has conducted a study on the minimum viable population sizes. BLM and WGFD have 

a very strong monitoring program in this planning area. In addition, sage-grouse winter concentration 

maps are being developed and will be added to the record of decision upon completion.

Comment: Naugle 2006 also documents the impacts of coalbed methane gas development on sage grouse 

and shows a bleak future for the bird in CBM fields. Although the DEIS has almost no discussion of 

CBM development in the planning area, except as it discusses mineral development in general, we point 

BLM again to this study and urge that greater protections be developed for the sage grouse in the planning 

area.

Response: Management actions for sage-grouse have been updated in the final document.

Comment: A number of raptors and medium-sized mammalian carnivores prey on sage grouse. Sage 

grouse nest predators include bobcats, golden eagles, red fox, badgers, common ravens, and coyotes 

(Heath et a1. 1997). Hulet et al. (1986) found that the Uinta ground squirrel was the most important nest 

predator in their southern Idaho study area. The maintenance of appropriate habitat and adequate cover, 

particularly on nesting and brood-rearing habitats, is important to ensure that predation rates do not 

increase to abnormal levels. In addition to maintaining cover, it is important to avoid the construction of 

tall structures that serve as raptor perches and concentrate predation pressure, like powerlines and gas 

condensate tanks, near these habitats.

Response: Please see page 2-144 for text which discusses these issues.

Pinedale RMP A27-563 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Comment: Mesic meadows and surface waters are focal points of sage grouse activity during certain 

times of year. Mesic sites associated with springs, seeps, and streams are critical for sage grouse on a 

yearlong basis, and assumes even greater importance as brood rearing habitat (Autenreith et al. 1982). 

Call and Maser (1985) stated, “We believe that free water is an essential component of sage grouse 

habitat”, but noted that “[s]age grouse may do well in the absence of free water where they have access to 

succulent vegetation.” (p. 4). Oaldeaf (1971) found that the presence of surface water was an important 

factor that increased the value of meadows as grouse rearing habitat. Thus, management for sage grouse 

should include special emphasis on protecting wet meadows, springs, and seeps.

Response: The RMP provides protection for riparian areas, page 2-140.

Comment: The availability of forage with a high nutritional content is an important factor determining 

brood success. Broods require forbs, insects and cover for growth, concealment and shade (Autenreith 

1985). The diet of sage grouse chicks is dominated by insects in the first week of life, with forbs 

becoming more important as time progresses (Call and Maser 1985). Oakleaf (1971) reported that 

succulent forbs dominated the diets of brood-rearing hens and juveniles until the chicks reached 11-12 

weeks of age. Drut et al. (1994a) found that in the area with high sage grouse productivity, insects and 

forbs made up 80% of chicks’ diets, while sagebrush buds made up 65% of diets in the area of low sage 

grouse productivity. These researchers reached the following conclusions: “Substantially lower 

consumption of forbs and invertebrates and increased reliance on sagebrush may affect chick growth and 

survival, which would be reflected in long-term differences in productivity between areas. Insects are a 

critical nutrition source for developing chicks” (p. 93). Dunn and Braun (1986) argued that meadows, as 

important forb-producing areas, should be preserved. Thus, the BLM should manage sage grouse broodrearing habitat to maximize high quality forage for chicks.

Response: Livestock grazing and other activities will be managed to achieve Wyoming Standards for 

Rangeland Health, page 2-118.

Comment: Researchers appear to be unanimous in their recommendations that sage grouse winter habitat 

be protected from disturbance. Kerley (1994) recommended, “Because shrub stands used during winter 

(category 3 stands) make up a small proportion of available habitats, these patches on south facing slopes, 

as well as other traditional wintering sites, should not be treated [to remove or reduce shrubs]” (p.113). 

Connelly et al. (2000) concurred, recommending against habitat manipulation. in sagebrush stands of 10-

30% canopy cover heights of at least 25 cm to protect winter habitats. According to Beck and Braun 

(1980), “Areas of winter concentrations of sage grouse need to be documented and afforded maximum 

protection” (p. 564). Lyon (2000) recommended that sage grouse wintering habitats be placed off-limits 

to oil and gas development. Thus, in the Pinedale planning area, the BLM needs to rapidly identify sage 

grouse winter concentration areas and place the areas off-limits to surface disturbance and vegetation 

treatments.

Response: BLM and WGFD are currently identifying winter concentration areas, which will be updated 

in the record of decision.

Comment: Call and Maser (1985) stated that spraying should not occur within the breeding complex 

(which they defined as within 2 miles of a lek), and should also be forbidden in known grouse winter 

ranges. Taking into account the negative effects of vegetation treatments on sage grouse nesting and 

lekking areas, and uncertainty in the overall extent of sage grouse nesting habitat surrounding lek sites in 

the Great Divide region, the BLM should prohibit vegetation treatments within 3 miles of sage grouse lek 

sites.

A27-564 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Response: The effects of past treatments in terms of habitat structure and wildlife use are currently being 

studied. The information may be used to recommend grazing management and mitigation strategies to 

achieve the ecological conditions for sage-grouse that you have outlined.

Comment: Coal mining can impact sage grouse populations through major local decreases in recruitment 

(Braun 1986); local distribution patterns and decreases in lek use are the principal effects, with 

disturbance, rather than habitat loss, being the primary factor (Remington and Braun 1991). Klott (1987) 

recommended that areas near sage grouse leks be avoided for the purposes of strip mining. We concur, 

and ask the BLM to withdraw lands within 3 miles of a sage grouse lek from lands suitable for surface 

mining under SMCRA.

Response: As part of the planning process, BLM issued a call for coal lease applications. No interest in 

coal in the planning area has been expressed. It is not likely that the coal in the planning area will be 

developed.

Comment: Oil and gas development poses perhaps the greatest threat to sage grouse viability in the 

region. In a study near Pinedale, sage grouse from disturbed leks where gas development occurred within 

3 km of the lek site showed lower nesting rates, traveled farther to nest, and selected greater shrub cover 

than grouse from undisturbed leks (Lyon 2000). According to Lyon (2000), impacts of oil and gas 

development to sage grouse include (1) direct habitat loss from new construction, (2) increased human 

activity and pumping noise causing displacement, (3) increased legal and illegal harvest, (4) direct 

mortality associated with reserve pits, and (5) lowered water tables resulting in herbaceous vegetation 

loss. Pump noise from oil and gas development may reduce the effective range of grouse vocalizations 

(Klott 1987). Thus, lek buffers are needed to ensure that booming sage grouse are audible to conspecifics 

during the breeding season. Connelly et al. (2000) recommended, “Energy-related facilities should be 

located >3.2 km form active leks” (p. 278). But Clait Braun (pers. comm.), the worlds most eminent 

expert on sage grouse, recommended even larger NSO buffers of 3 miles from lek sites, based on the 

uncertainty of protecting sage grouse nesting habitat with smaller buffers. Thus, areas within 3 miles of a 

sage grouse lek should be put under year-round “No Surface Occupancy” stipulations.

Response: The reasons mentioned are why a 3-mile NSO was applied to Alternative 3, page 2-101.

Comment: For allotments where sage grouse nesting is known to occur, shifting on-off dates (if 

necessary) could minimize the chances of impacts to nesting sage grouse, and livestock drives should be 

routed to avoid sage grouse leks during the strutting and nesting seasons. 

Response: This recommendation is being analyzed at this time. The information you have outlined may 

be used to recommend grazing management and/or mitigation strategies to achieve the ecological 

conditions for sage-grouse.

Comment: Certainly, off-road vehicle use in sage grouse nesting habitats has negative consequences for 

the grouse. Call and Maser (1985) made the following recommendations concerning off-road vehicle use 

and sage grouse: Organized motorcycle or four-wheel drive races across sage grouse nesting habitat, 

however, can cause substantial loss of production from direct destruction of nests, from abandonment of 

nests during egg-laying, from destruction of young chicks, or from all three. If sage grouse production is a 

management goal, then it is wise to postpone such races until after the first of September when the birds 

are old enough to fly out of harm’s way (p. 19). We concur, and urge the BLM not only to avoid the 

proliferation of new roads and user-created vehicle routes in nesting habitats but also to schedule events 

away from nesting habitats and avoid scheduling them during the nesting period.

Pinedale RMP A27-565 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Response: Page 2-144 states that vehicular activity would be limited to existing roads and trails and 

transportation planning is required within 5 years of ROD, page 2-135. Recreational events would not be 

permitted within sage-grouse habitats.

Comment: In addition to destroying the insects and forbs required by sage grouse broods, the spraying of 

insecticides and herbicides may cause direct mortality of sage grouse. In a Montana study, Wallestad 

(1975) found that treatment of 24% (751 acres) of suitable sagebrush habitat around one lek resulted in a 

50% reduction of cocks, while treatment of 11% (640 acres) of suitable habitat around a second lek 

showed no change in sage grouse numbers; during the same time period, sage grouse numbers at control 

leks with no sagebrush treatment increased over 300%. Klebenow (1970) found that spraying of nesting 

habitat caused a long-term cessation of nesting activity in the area. Blus et al. (1989) found that the 

spraying of two types of insecticides over grouse was fatal to 78% of grouse, and hypothesized that 

insecticides have played a role in regionwide sage grouse declines. Standards should be issued preventing 

the spraying of insecticides in sensitive sage grouse habitats during periods where these habitats are 

occupied.

Response: Spraying of insecticides is not permissible on BLM lands. Herbicide spraying has been 

permitted but will be analyzed against the NEPA more critically in the future, for the reasons you stated. 

Comment: Current BLM nest buffers of 1/a mile for controlled surface disturbance and 2 miles for 

seasonal stipulations are grossly inadequate to maintain sage grouse viability in the Great Divide planning 

area. The lek buffer must be based not only on maintaining the lek but also the nesting habitat that 

surrounds the lek. In addition, seasonal prohibitions that prohibit only construction activities near leks are 

pointless: If roads or wells are built near leks during the off-season, the resulting regular vehicle traffic 

will have major negative impacts when the sage grouse are present, effectively circumventing any 

mitigative value of delaying construction activities.

Response: Page 2-144 states that vehicular activity would be limited to existing roads and trails and that 

transportation planning is required within 5 years of ROD, page 2-135.

Comment: The DEIS indicates that surface-disturbance activities and oil and gas development may occur 

within 1/4 mile of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) leks within areas designated as 

“intensively developed oil and gas fields.” The Service is concerned that disruptive activity within close 

proximity to sage-grouse leks may result in non-use of those traditional lekking areas and lead to 

fragmentation of sage-grouse habitat and disappearance of this species from the surrounding landscape. 

Under the preferred alternative of the proposed RMP, these impacts could be exacerbated by the fact that 

areas designated by the Bureau as “minimally developed oil and gas areas” could receive “intensively 

developed oil and gas field” status, if an oil and gas discovery is made in those areas currently designated 

as “minimally developed”. 

Response: BLM will comply with the WAFWA MOU to conserve the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. 

Comment: The following information is provided for your use in the evaluation of proposed actions and 

their potential effects to the sage-grouse. The Service has determined that the greater sage-grouse is 

unwarranted for listing at this time. However, the Service continues to have concerns regarding sagegrouse population status, trends and threats, as well as concerns for other sagebrush obligates. 

Greater sage-grouse are dependent on sagebrush habitats year-round. Habitat loss and degradation, as 

well as loss of population connectivity have been identified as important factors contributing to the 

decline of greater sage-grouse populations rangewide (Braun 1998, Wisdom et al. 2002). Therefore, any 

activities that result in loss or degradation of sagebrush habitats that are important to this species should 

A27-566 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

be closely evaluated for their impacts to sage-grouse. Around important breeding habitat (leks, nesting or 

brood rearing habitat), the Service recommends no project-related disturbance from March I through June 

30, annually. Minimization of disturbance during lek activity, nesting, and brood rearing is critical to 

sage-grouse persistence within these areas. Likewise, if important winter habitats are present, the Service 

recommends no project-related disturbance from November 15 through March 14.

Response: The discussion of impacts to sage-grouse habitats has been revised.

Comment: We recommend you contact the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) to identify 

important greater sage-grouse habitats within the project area, and appropriate mitigative measures to 

minimize potential impacts in the RAMP planning area. The Service recommends surveys and mapping 

of important greater sage-grouse habitats where local information is not available. The results of these 

surveys should be used in project planning, to minimize potential impacts to this species. No project 

activities that may exacerbate habitat loss or degradation should be permitted in important habitats. 

Response: BLM and WGFD are in the process of identifying and mapping sage-grouse nesting and 

brood-rearing habitats. These maps will be added to the record of decision upon completion.

Comment: In Wyoming, information suggests that greater sage-grouse populations are negatively 

affected by energy development activities, especially those that degrade important sagebrush habitat, even 

when mitigative measures are implemented (Braun 1998, Lyon 2000, Naugle et al. 2006). Greater sagegrouse populations can repopulate areas developed for resource extraction after habitat reclamation for 

the species (Braun 1987). However, there is no evidence that populations attain their previous levels and 

reestablishment of sage-grouse in a reclaimed area may take 20 to 30 years, or longer (Braun 1998). 

Recent information from a doctoral dissertation on the impacts of oil and gas development to greater 

sage-grouse in the Pinedale Anticline found that as development increased, lek activity declined up to 100 

percent (Halloran 2005). Therefore, the authorized activities under the RMP should be carefully evaluated 

for long-term and cumulative effects on the greater sage-grouse, since reclamation may not restore 

populations to pre-activity levels. The Bureau should ensure activities authorized under the Pinedale RMP 

do not exacerbate greater sage-grouse declines on either a local or range-wide level.

Response: BLM will comply with the WAFWA MOU to conserve the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. 

Comment: In 2000, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau, and the Service signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) to 

conserve the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. This MOU outlined the participation of Federal and State 

wildlife agencies, including the WGFD, in greater sage-grouse conservation, and these commitments 

should be considered in project planning in sage-grouse habitat. Additionally, unless site-specific 

information is available, greater sage-grouse habitat should be managed following the guidelines by 

Connelly et al. 2000 (also known as the WAFWA guidelines). The WAFWA guidelines state that energyrelated facilities should be located greater than 2 miles from active leks unless the habitat is mapped.

Response: BLM will comply with the WAFWA MOU to conserve the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. 

Comment: In “Minimally Developed Areas” BLM’s the Preferred Alternative proposes a 2-mile seasonal 

“avoidance area” around leks in addition to the 1%-mile NSO buffer. Yet, the agency itself admits that 

“data indicate a 2-mile buffer would inadequately protect sage-grouse leks, nesting success, and 

recruitment of yearlings within a Minimally Developed Area.” Pinedale RMP DEIS at 4-210. Mitigation 

measures are intended to offset negative impacts, thereby protecting wildlife species. NWF and WWF do 

not understand why BLM would choose to implement mitigation measures that it knows will be 

inadequate. 

Pinedale RMP A27-567 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Other BLM offices are exploring some innovative strategies for protecting sage grouse in RMPs. BLM’s 

Little Snake Field Office in Colorado recently released its draft RMP/EIS for the Little Snake planning 

area. Included in the DEIS for the revised Little Snake RMP is a novel approach to improving sagebrush 

habitat functionality by limiting fragmentation. This management alternative provides that “to maintain 

and improve large blocks of functional sagebrush communities, oil and gas operators could opt into an 

agreement to limit habitat fragmentation in return for easing timing limitation stipulations and allowing 

year-round drilling.” Little Snake RMP DEIS at 2-16. The arrangement would apply to all areas located 

within 4 miles of a sage-grouse lek site and 8 designated large patches of sagebrush habitat; exceptions 

granted for easing timing limitations would not apply to the ’A-mile NSO buffer for sage grouse. The 

agreement would stipulate that no more than 5% of the surface area of each lease or unit would be 

disturbed at any time. BLM hopes to encourage operators to develop proposals that leave larger blocks of 

sagebrush habitat undisturbed within a project area by clustering facilities and carefully designing road 

and pipeline systems to minimize disturbance. 

Similarly, BLM’s Miles City Field Office in Montana just released its Draft Supplement to the Montana 

Statewide Oil and Gas EIS and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings RMP. In it, the agency 

proposes an alternative that includes another phased development approach where BLM would limit the 

percentage of disturbance on BLM surface or on private surface overlying federal minerals within each 

identified crucial wildlife area to no more than 20% over a 20-year period. NWF and WWF encourage 

BLM to look at more aggressive approaches to conserving sage grouse and sage grouse habitat within the 

Pinedale Resource Area.

Response: The draft supplemental EIS for the Pinedale Anticline Planning Area is proposing these very 

alternatives that the commenter mentioned in the two examples given. These actions would carry through 

into the RMP once the ROD is signed for the supplemental EIS. Many of the recommendations 

mentioned are considered BMPs found in Appendix 5. BMP application is developed at the field 

development planning level.

Comment: The Monitoring Strategy Detailed for Sage Grouse in the DEIS is Inadequate.Appendix 11 

“Monitoring and Evaluation” indicates that the “trigger” for taking action to conserve sage grouse is a 

“[d]eclining trend in number of males and females.” As noted by Dr. Clait Braun, this monitoring strategy 

will not supply adequate information on the vitality of sage grouse populations within the planning area. 

Winter habitat is also not adequately addressed in the DEIS. This is partially due to the fact that the winter 

habitat of sage grouse has not been adequately researched or mapped. This should be done prior to 

commencement of the oject so that well pads and other facilities are not placed directly in winter habitat.

Response: BLM and WGFD are developing sage-grouse winter concentration area maps which will be 

added to the record of decision upon completion.

Comment: Examples of species specific information on fragmentation and impacts from roads and oil 

and gas development from field biologists and the scientific literature that should be considered in this 

RMP include the following. Lyon and Anderson (2003) found that female nest initiation rates declined 

24% in disturbed areas. Preliminary results of an ongoing study of sage-grouse in Montana coal-bed 

natural gas (CBNG) developments showed an active lek had one third the density of wells within two 

miles of the lek compared with an inactive lek, and that “active leks and leks with moderate to large 

numbers of males were often found adjacent to CBNG fields but rarely within CBNG” (Naugle et al. 

2006).

Response: The impact analysis has been updated in the final EIS.

A27-568 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: Examples of species specific information on fragmentation and impacts from roads and oil 

and gas development from field biologists and the scientific literature that should be considered in this 

RMP include the following. 

Sagebrush Obligate Birds Impacts: The American Bird Conservancy (2007) lists sage brush habitat as the 

most threatened bird habitat in the continental United States. Inglefinger (2001) found that for lands 

within 328 feet (100 meters) of a road or well pad the density of sagebrush obligate birds drops by 50 

percent regardless of the amount of activity on the road.

Response: The impact analysis has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: As part of this RMP and Draft EIS, BLM proposes to manage sage grouse habitat based on 

the classification of the specific area as intensely developed, minimally developed, or NSO with the 

ultimate management objective of maintaining “sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed greater 

sage-grouse source habitats to ensure long-term species sustainability and functioning habitats”. Actions 

to achieve this objective for minimally developed areas include time restrictions and prohibiting surface 

disturbing activities within 0.25 mile of occupied leks. EPA notes, however, that recent long-term studies 

on the effects of wellfield development to greater sage-grouse lek attendance indicate that the 0.25 mile 

buffer surrounding leks, within which surface disturbing activities would be prohibited, is insufficient to 

maintain function of lek habitats due to wellfield activities and associated noise (Holloran 2005 and. 

Ecosystem Research Group, 2006). 

Recognizing that the science continues to emerge on this issue, EPA recommends further analysis of the 

potential impacts to sage grouse and the potential effectiveness of the actions proposed to meet the sage 

grouse habitat objective. EPA recognizes the wildlife management expertise of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and encourages BLM to continue to coordinate 

with these agencies to assess whether the proposed plan will provide an effective means of ensuring longterm species sustainability, to identify the best available science, and to develop effective adaptive 

management.

Response: BLM will comply with the WAFWA MOU to conserve the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. 

Comment: Page 4-73 “Geophysical operations would be restricted during the 5-month window where 

greater sage-grouse habitats occur.” Comment - No scientific justification has been provided for this 

restriction and it must be eliminated. It has never been demonstrated that geophysical operations harm 

wildlife, including sage-grouse. The low impact, transient nature of geophysical operations has a near 

zero impact on the environment. It must be acknowledged that because geophysical operations have such 

little impact on the environment, and yet greatly increases oil and gas drilling success which results in 

significant reduction of total drilling and associated environmental impact, geophysical operations should 

be encouraged instead of restricted. 

Response: There have been significant amounts of research on the impacts of human presence, roads, 

vehicle use, etc., in remote areas. As you stated, the research conducted by Gillin and Irwin (1985) in the 

BTNF seismic activity caused displacement of elk within home ranges by an average of three-quarters of 

a mile. The geophysical industry has not proven that there is little impact to the environment. 

Scarification can still be seen in areas where thumper trucks have been used as if linear treatments were 

conducted over thousands of acres.

Comment: Page A5-2 “Avoidance of surface disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable sage-grouse 

nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within 2 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified sage-grouse 

nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 through July 15.” 

Pinedale RMP A27-569 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Comment - There appears to be no limit on regulating surface disturbance beyond the 2-mile buffer; and, 

arguably there is no basis for extending the 2-mile buffer. The current sage-grouse stipulation (1⁄4 mile 

NSO and 2-mile timing restriction) is adequate to maintain the species. APPENDIX 12 - SEASONAL 

WILDLIFE STIPULATIONS FOR ALL SURFACE DISTURBING ACTIVITIES Page A12-1 Under the 

heading of Restricted Area for winter sage-grouse habitat, activities are restricted from November 15 - 

March 14. Comment - It would be more realistic to add the word “crucial” after the word “identified” 

under the Restricted Area column. Sage grouse, like big game animals will winter on a much larger area 

than is crucial to them during severe winter conditions. “Identified winter habitat” would likely include 

the entire sagebrush vegetation type in the planning area, which would result in excessive and unfounded 

restrictions.

Response: According to the following peer-reviewed scientific literature, the current restrictions are not 

adequate: Holloran, M. J. and S.H. Anderson, 2005, Spatial Distribution of Greater Sage-Grouse Nests in 

Relatively Contiguous Sagebrush Habitats. The Condor 107:742–752; Holloran, M.J., B.J. Heath, A.G. 

Lyon, S.J. Slater, J.L. Kuipers, S.H. Anderson, 2005, Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat selection and 

success in Wyoming, Journal of Wildlife Management 69(2): 638-649; Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, B. 

L. Walker, and J. M. Graham, in press, Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy 

development, Journal of Wildlife Management. Winter concentration maps are currently being developed 

by BLM and WGFD and the record of decision will be updated upon their completion. These areas do not 

occur in all of the sage brush habitats because much of the sagebrush is covered in snow for 6 months out 

of the year. The most important areas are the windswept areas where sagebrush is exposed.

Comment: Item: Page 3-119. Under the heading of Greater Sage-Grouse it is stated that Greater sagegrouse are discussed below under Special Status Wildlife Species. Comment - Since the greater sagegrouse is hunted in Wyoming it is more appropriately discussed under the Game Birds section. It is not 

reasonable for this species to be both hunted and also classified as a Special Status Wildlife Species. On 

page 3-123 under the BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species section it is referred to as: “–the most numerous 

and widespread game bird in the planning area.” 

Response: Despite the fact that greater sage-grouse are still hunted under WGFD regulations and are the 

most numerous and widespread game bird within the planning area, numerous studies and nationwide 

studies have documented large-scale historic declines. For this reason, BLM has designated this species as 

sensitive and why the Governor of Wyoming is putting tremendous effort into managing this species.

Comment: Item: Page A12-1. Under the heading of Restricted Area for winter sage-grouse habitat it 

restricts use from November 15 - March 14. Comment - It would be more realistic to add the word 

“crucial” after the word “identified” under the Restricted Area column. Sage grouse, like big game 

animals will winter on a much larger area than is crucial to them during severe winter conditions. 

“Identified winter habitat” could include the entire sagebrush vegetation type in the planning area and 

result in an excessive restriction.

Response: Winter concentration maps are currently being developed by BLM and WGFD and the record 

of decision will be updated upon their completion. These areas do not occur in all of the sagebrush 

habitats because much of the sagebrush is covered in snow for 6 months out of the year. The most 

important areas are the windswept areas where sagebrush is exposed.

Comment: This Pinedale RMP planning area provides several million-acres of exceptional habitat for 

sage grouse. While present data are too limited to conclusively evaluate the overall health of the Upper 

Green’s sage grouse populations and trends in the available habitat, there are worrisome signs. In recent 

years there has been a local decline in spring counts of sage grouse numbers and site inspections have 

indicated substantial disturbance in almost all habitat in the Valley. Besides the impacts from the current 

A27-570 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

natural gas development boom, new housing, power line and road corridors, and livestock grazing have 

all affected sage grouse habitats. The DEIS fails to adequately consider these cumulative impacts on sage 

grouse and other wildlife species. Studies are needed to confirm the extent and specifics of how these 

activities harm local populations, and it is clear that continuing with present practices will result in habitat 

decline and reduced distribution and numbers of sage grouse throughout the Valley. 

Furthermore, shrub communities in the Green River Basin are the single most important habitat type for 

supporting the tens of thousands of wintering mule deer and pronghorn. However, inventory data on BLM 

lands is limited and habitat management typically receives low priority by the BLM. The only 

comprehensive vegetation inventory conducted in the Pinedale Resource Area was done on BLM lands 

located between North Piney Creek and Fontenelle Creek, during 1988 and 1989 (Cundy 1989). The 

purpose of the Cundy (1989)’s inventory was to evaluate shrub community conditions on mule deer 

winter ranges. 

Response: BLM is currently collecting fine-scaled habitat data to assess the seasonal habitat use across 

landscapes. This information will be used for mitigation projects, habitat improvement projects, and 

project planning to maintain functional habitats across the landscapes. Alternative 3 and all of the areas 

unavailable for leasing and NSO areas aim to effectively protect seasonal habitats for all sagebrush 

obligate species.

Comment: Pg 2-143 to 153 Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management Management Objectives and Actions: 

Objective 1 Maintain sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed habitats to protect wildlife 

resources... General Observation: Generally the goals, objectives and actions described are related to the 

protection of habitat with the caveat of “to the extent practicable” in regards to oil and gas fields 

determined to be “intensively developed areas”. It is clear that any of the four oil and gas management 

areas could evolve into an intensively developed area in the off chance that a significant resource is 

discovered, the feasibility of this occurring is limited due to the management prescriptions places on the 

Large Block NSO and Unavailable areas. The “traditional multiple use management and accommodating 

all approved uses to the extent possible” focus of Minimally Developed Areas should be stressed but as 

written the management focus for this area is on wildlife not “all approved uses”. Specific Comments: 

Objective 2 Maintain sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed greater sage-grouse source habitats to 

ensure long-term species sustainability and functioning habitats within the planning area. Actions 

Intensively Developed Fields - this section does not set unreasonable restrictions or expectations for fields 

determined to meet the definition of intensively developed. Minimally Developed Areas a. The 

restrictions on the use of existing roads and trails in areas of sage-grouse activity do not provide any 

clarity as to the proximity of the road or trail to grouse breeding, nesting/early brood rearing or winter use 

areas. Generally lekking, nesting and early brood rearing area restrictions would be applied within a two 

mile radius of the lek as found in (b). Winter concentration areas need to be defined so that vehicle access 

can be appropriately limited. f. The prohibition of surface disturbing activities in sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas should be limited to areas of severe winter habitats as described in HWA 2006 

(Hayden-Wing Associates, LLC. July 2006. Vegetation and habitat analysis of critical wintering areas for 

greater sage-grouse. Prepared for US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 

Tulsa, Oklahoma.). Large Block NSO Areas – It is unrealistic to lease areas as large as those illustrated in 

Map 2- 9 with NSO restrictions placed on their development.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of existing valid leases. It is BLM’s 

intent that the unavailable and NSO areas remain undeveloped and provide valuable wildlife habitat. 

However, to the extent that existing leases are present in these areas, some development could occur. The 

Large Block NSO areas have been removed from the final EIS.

Pinedale RMP A27-571 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Comment: Pgs 4-180 to 4-211 4.17 Wildlife and Fish Habitat 4.17.3 Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives General Observation: This section does not consistently discuss the value of the BLM 

applied stipulations and BMPs. For example, pg 4-183 “Proper design of linear crossings and BMPs 

would minimize these impacts” is recognized yet when discussing noise from compressor stations it is not 

recognized that implementation of BMPs such as placing the station downwind of a lek or behind a 

topographic barrier or installing enhanced muffler systems would mitigate potential impacts to sagegrouse leks. The application of and appreciation for the use of BMPs and stipulations must be discussed 

to make the impacts analysis valid. The lack of acknowledgment of these mitigating actions is pervasive 

throughout the impacts analysis. Additional examples of this lack of disclosure are provided below, there 

are many more that are not specifically mentioned.

Response: BMPs are implemented on a site-specific basis and do not universally require onsite 

mitigation. In addition, it is not always possible to use topographic barriers or place compressor stations 

downwind from an active lek. As experience in the existing fields has shown, it cannot be generally 

assumed that implementation of a BMP would completely mitigate impacts. 

Comment: Sensitive Species: The discussion of impacts to sensitive species from domestic livestock 

grazing under the preferred alternative is limited to the following discussion: “Management actions to 

achieve or maintain a seral stage appropriate for the maximum benefit of Colorado River cutthroat trout 

would alter the management of livestock in Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat areas. Livestock 

management strategies could include forage allocation reductions, deferred or shortened grazing periods, 

use of riparian pastures, increased cattle herding, increased fencing, and upland water development. 

“Increased emphasis on maintaining and improving habitats for sensitive species would result in limiting 

range improvements and altering livestock grazing management where grazing activities impact the 

integrity of the species or their habitat.” The September 20, 2002 BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species 

Policy and List states the following: 

“Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Manual 6840 establishes Special Status Species (SSS) policy for 

plant and animal species and the habitat on which they depend. This SSS policy refers not only to species 

protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but also to those designated by the State Director as 

Sensitive. The manual states “Sec. 06D - Sensitive Species: State Directors, usually in cooperation with 

the State wildlife agency, may designate sensitive species. By definition the sensitive species designation 

includes species that could easily become endangered or extinct in the state. Therefore, if sensitive 

species are designated by the State Director, the protection provided by the policy for candidate species 

shall be used as the minimum level of protection”. The policy further sets out how the Wyoming BLM is 

to manage sensitive species. It also notes the intent of the sensitive species designation is to ensure actions 

on BLM administered lands consider the welfare of these species and do not contribute to the need to list 

any other Special Status Species under the provisions of the ESA. 

Management requirements that apply to the species on the BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species List are to 

avoid or minimize adverse impacts and maximize potential benefits to species whose viability has been 

identified as a concern by reviewing programs and activities to determine their potential effect on 

sensitive species. Requesting technical assistance from the FWS, and any other qualified source, on 

actions that may affect a sensitive species is recommended. It is not the intent of this list to track species 

range-wide or even statewide as this is done by other entities (WYNDD, WGFD, FWS, GAP, etc.) rather 

the BLM’s obligation is to determine distribution and manage habitats. It is also the intent of this list to 

emphasize planning, management, and monitoring of these species. 

IM 97-118 continues by reiterating BLM policy to ensure actions authorized, funded, or carried out by 

BLM do not contribute to the need for any species to become listed as a candidate, or for any candidate 

species to become listed as threatened or endangered. Early identification of BLM sensitive species is 

A27-572 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

advised in efforts to prevent species endangerment, and state directors are encouraged to collect 

information on species of concern to determine if BLM sensitive species designation and special 

management are needed. 

The BLM’s sensitive species manual requires the following from field office managers: 

F. Field Office Managers are responsible for implementing the special status species program within their 

area of jurisdiction by: 

1. Conducting and maintaining current inventories for special status species on public lands. 

2. Providing for the conservation of special status species in the preparation and implementation of 

recovery plans with which BLM has concurred, interagency plans and conservation agreements. 

3. Ensuring that all actions comply with the ESA, its implementing regulations, and other directives 

associated with conserving special status species. 

4. Coordinating field office activities with Federal, State, and local groups to ensure the most effective 

program for special status species conservation. 

5. Ensuring actions are evaluated to determine if special status species objectives are being met. 

6. Ensuring all actions authorized, funded or carried out by BLM follow the interagency consultation 

procedures as outlined in 50 CFR Part 402- Interagency cooperation -Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. 

7. Ensuring results of formal section 7 consultations, including terms and conditions in incidental take 

statements, are implemented. 

In regards to planning area, the BLM must conduct and maintain current inventories for sensitive species, 

must comply with directions in the Programmatic Mountain Plover Biological Evaluation, and must 

ensure that any approved alternative meets the objectives set for special status species. The RMP should 

require site-specific surveys before approving any action, including authorizing grazing in permit 

renewals, when analyzing allotment management plans, when authorizing range improvements and water 

developments, and other management activities. 

Sage grouse: Sage grouse depend almost entirely on sagebrush for food and protection from predators. In 

the summer, the birds depend on the grasses and plants that grow under the sagebrush to provide nesting 

material, as well as high protein insects that are critical to the diet of chicks in the first few months of life. 

In winter, almost 99 percent of their diet is sagebrush leaves and buds. Recent estimates indicate that the 

sage grouse populations have declined by approximately 86 percent from historic levels. One of the 

greatest threats to sage grouse populations is the destruction and loss of habitat from a variety of 

management activities including livestock grazing. Yet, the DEIS fails to consider these how past 

vegetation improvement projects and other management activities across the planning area. 

In presettlement times, the range of the sage grouse paralleled the range of big sagebrush. Basin big 

sagebrush provides important cover for sage grouse. Populations of sage grouse have declined primarily 

because of loss of habitat due to overgrazing, elimination of sagebrush, and land development. Sage 

grouse populations began declining from 1900 to 1915, when livestock utilization of sagebrush rangeland 

was heavy. In the 50’s and 60’s, land agencies adopted a policy of aggressive sagebrush control in order 

to convert sagebrush types to grassland. Chaining, frequent fire, and herbicide treatments reduced 

sagebrush by several million acres and sage grouse numbers plummeted drastically. 

Sage grouse historically occurred throughout the range of big sagebrush (A. tridentata), except on the 

periphery of big sagebrush distribution or in areas where it has been eliminated. Sage grouse prefer 

mountain big sagebrush (A. t. ssp. vaseyana) and Wyoming big sagebrush (A. t. ssp. wyomingensis) 

communities to basin big sagebrush (A. t. spp. tridentata) communities. Sage grouse are totally dependent 

Pinedale RMP A27-573 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

on sagebrush-dominated habitats. Sagebrush is a crucial component of their diet year-round, and sage 

grouse select sagebrush almost exclusively for cover. 

When not on the lek, sage grouse disperse to the surrounding areas. Some females probably travel 

between leks. Patterson reported that in Wyoming, 92 percent of sage grouse nests in Wyoming big 

sagebrush were in areas where vegetation was 10 to 20 inches (25-51 cm) tall and cover did not exceed 50 

percent.

Response: The standards and guidelines or an ecosystem analysis approach to assess livestock grazing is 

meant to assess the viability of the habitat across the landscape. If problems are found, changes in fences 

could occur throughout the planning area, additional fences may be considered for management purposes 

if they do not impede movement of migratory game species. In addition, fences attract avian predators by 

creating new perches, which can be detrimental to BLM sensitive species management. BLM understands 

the commitment to protect sensitive species in accordance with the 6840 Manual, in addition to BLM’s 

federal regulatory requirements under the ESA. Currently, BLM is collecting baseline vegetation 

inventories on the effects of historic sagebrush treatments. This information will be the basis for habitat 

management as well as offsite mitigation programs.

Comment: Pg 4-198 first partial paragraph, states “Timing limitation have been found to be inadequate to 

maintain species such as sage-grouse in a developed field.” The recent development activity in the PAPA 

began in 1998, as illustrated in Figure 6, ten years later greater sage-grouse continue to occupy the field as 

they do the surrounding area; therefore the BLM timing stipulations are effective in maintaining the 

species in the field. As stated earlier in these comments, BLM purposely impacted two leks by lifting the 

spatial and temporal stipulations normally implemented to mitigate impacts to the greater sage-grouse. 

Clearly, if these limitations are removed to benefit the Intensely Developed Fields scenario and activities 

are taking place within the 1⁄4 mile and two mile radii of active leks during the lekking, nesting and early 

brood rearing periods impacts similar to those document by Holloran for the Lovatt Draw and Mesa 

Springs leks should be expected. Such impacts should not be seen in the Minimally Developed Areas 

scenario though some reduction in average male lek attendance may occur. First full paragraph on the 

same page discusses West Nile virus as a possible extraordinary stressor on sage-grouse. Given the 

generally limited days of heating in the planning area WNV is not expected to be an issue. Perhaps, Terry 

Creekmore, Wyoming State Department of Health, could be a source of information relative to this topic.

Response: Allowing one well to be drilled by waiving the NSO does not change the fact that there are 

large-scale lek declines in the Jonah as well as the Anticline gas developments. This trend is not only seen 

in the populations found in the Upper Green River Basin, but also the Powder River Basin. 

Comment: In places, the number of young sage grouse simply is not enough to sustain a stable 

population. Sage grouse have one of the lowest recruitment rates of any upland game bird in North 

America. Loss of habitat, predation, drought, and poor weather conditions during hatching and brooding 

periods have been cited as factors leading to poor recruitment. 

Lack of adequate nesting and brooding cover may account for high juvenile losses in many regions. A 

decline in preferred prey may also result in increased predation on sage grouse. Nest losses to predators 

vary throughout the range of sage grouse, but predators are more successful in areas of poor-quality 

nesting habitat. Wyoming, in general, has the strongest sage grouse population in the world. 

Fragmentation of the habitats upon which this population depends will slowly unravel the entire presently 

linked sage-grouse population in Wyoming. This has already happened in most other states with 

disastrous results and has already started in Wyoming -- most noticeably at the periphery of the historical 

distribution. Once this continuity becomes fragmented, the overall distribution fabric is lost and sageA27-574 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

grouse populations will become disjointed and subject to greatly reduced abundance as well as local 

extirpation.

Response: BLM agrees that sage-grouse is an important species, which is why BLM recognizes it as a 

sensitive species in the planning area and why special management actions are afforded for the sagegrouse in the proposed RMP final EIS.

Comment: Page 4-210, first paragraph, states that large block NSO could protect “big game crucial 

winter range and sage-grouse lek sites, that would be unable to withstand any disturbance at any time of 

the year.” This is a very misleading statement, we know these species, ungulates and sage grouse, are able 

to withstand some limited human disturbance during the most sensitive seasons as it seen on the Mesa and 

elsewhere. The sensitivity of the species in those areas is limited to the specific season of use. While it is 

true that the habitat would be protected by the Large Block NSO it is also protected in the Minimally 

Developed scenario and to a lesser extent in the Intensively Developed scenario by the restrictions laid 

out on pages 2-143 to 2-153. Further this paragraph expresses that these habitats within the large Block 

NSO are at risk of “becoming population sinks if the surrounding habitats are developed”. The probability 

of the Large Block NSO areas, that have previously been leased, becoming population sinks due to 

intensive development taking place is significantly overstated. Paragraph 3 states that “Wildlife habitat 

would generally only be protected if a mineral commodity is not present for extraction” all the 

development scenarios provide habitat protection to some extent, with Alternative 4 providing the least. 

Paragraph 8 discusses grazing and the need to rest “treated areas” from livestock grazing for two years. 

This prescription does not take into account types of treatment or drought/precipitation, both of which 

could aid in determining the rest period needed, longer or shorter. The discussion does not provide 

information regarding why the treatment may have been done or where replacement livestock grazing 

opportunities would occur. The final paragraph on page 4-210, continued on pg 4-211, discusses sagegrouse nests relative to lek locations and states that a 2-mile buffer would inadequately protect leks, 

nesting and juvenile recruitment within the Minimally Developed Area. This statement falsely 

characterizes the findings of Holloran (2005) and Kaiser (2006). Their research projects took place in the 

PAPA, an area of ongoing intensive development. Holloran’s work was specifically manipulated by BLM 

to determine the impacts of development activity, without mitigating stipulations and COAs, on sagegrouse. The Minimally Developed Areas scenario and sagegrouse protective stipulations found on pg 2-

144 are significantly more protective than those currently in place in the PAPA and especially more 

protective when contrasted to the situation that was seen at the Lovatt Draw and Mesa Springs leks where 

protective stipulations were removed. The potential impacts to the grouse from the Large Block NSO and 

Unavailable scenarios are hugely overstated as the protections provided in these areas are greater than 

those provided by the Minimally Developed scenario. The second full paragraph on pg 4-211 describes 

the potential impact to raptors from limiting raptor surveys to 1⁄2 mile around a proposed activity and 

states that “preventing take of raptors would present a great challenge.” This statement completely misstates the stipulations/COAs found on Pg. 2-151 which requires that prior to initiating surface disturbing 

actives raptor surveys would be conducted within a one mile radius of the proposed activity and that “c. 

Activities would be designed and mitigated to prevent take of raptors.” These same protective 

requirements are found in all four development scenarios. The Ch. 4 analysis of potential impacts on pg 

4-211 must be re-written to reflect the surveys required for all levels of exploration and development, and 

reflect that protection for raptors would extend to one mile around proposed activities.

Response: Holloran’s research was not the only energy-related study on the impacts to sage-grouse 

populations. Braun, C. E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge, 2002, Oil and gas development in 

western North America: effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on sage grouse, 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 67:337-349; Doherty, K. 

E., D. E. Naugle, B. L. Walker, and J. M. Graham, in press, Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection 

and energy development, Journal of Wildlife Management; Kaiser, R. C., 2006, Recruitment by greater 

Pinedale RMP A27-575 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

sage-grouse in association with natural gas development in western Wyoming, Thesis, University of 

Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming; Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson, 2003, Potential gas development 

impacts on sage-grouse nest initiation and movement, Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491; Walker, 

B.L., D.E. Naugle, and K.E. Doherty, in press, Greater sage-grouse population response to energy 

development and habitat loss, Journal of Wildlife Management. Furthermore, one well was allowed to be 

drilled by waiving the 1⁄4-mile NSO; the timing restrictions were still in place. This does not negate the 

fact that there are large scale lek declines in the Jonah, as well, as the Anticline gas developments. This 

trend is not only seen in the populations found the Upper Green River Basin but also in the Powder River 

Basin. 

Comment: Several scientists have researched and documented the biology and habitat requirements for 

sage grouse during their various life stages. These life stages include leks or breeding, nesting, broodrearing and wintering. Braun et al (1977) in their review found that leks or breeding sites were generally 

open areas surrounded by sagebrush and that nesting areas appeared to occur within a few kilometers of 

the lek sites. The maximum distance between leks and nesting sites reported was 12.9 km, with 59% 

being within 3.2 km. Successful nest sites had significantly greater sagebrush canopy cover (27%) as 

opposed to unsuccessful sites at 20%. An important component of the nesting sites is also the cover 

provided by herbaceous vegetation, particularly grasses. Connelly et al (2000) reported a range of grass 

height at nest sites between 14 – 34 inches and a mean of 20 inches with canopy cover of grasses ranging 

from 4 to 51% with a mean of 16%. During brood-rearing, grouse with chicks preferred more open 

sagebrush uplands at about 10% - 14% canopy, while loafing of adults occurred in stands with 30% 

canopy. Beginning in June and during mid-late summer, broods moved to more mesic sites such as 

meadows. Hockett (2002) stressed the importance of riparian and wet meadow sites during summer and 

fall. Wintering sites were reported to have greater than 20% sagebrush canopy cover. 

Connelly et al (2000) summarized characteristics of sage grouse habitat in the following table which is 

reproduced from their paper. The sagebrush canopy characteristic for breeding habitats is reported as a 

broad range, but it is important to remember that successful nests occur in areas with canopy cover at the 

high end of the range or higher. Diets of sage grouse vary through the year and by age. Sage grouse 

depend entirely on sagebrush from October through April. In May, they shift to a forb-dominated diet (20 

– 60%) with the remainder being mostly sagebrush. They shift back to sagebrush during September. 

Chicks begin life depending heavily on insects at about 60%, then shift to a forb dominated diet with 

about 15% sagebrush during the second month. 

Braun et al (1977), Welch et al (1990) , Connelly et al (2000) report that spraying, burning and 

mechanical treatments of sagebrush resulted in declines of sage power lines, fences, reservoirs, ranches, 

farms and housing developments have resulted in sage grouse habitat fragmentation and loss. Structures 

such as fences and power lines provide perch sites for raptors that prey on sage grouse and also result in 

injury or death when grouse collide with these. Connelly et al (2000) and Hockett (2000) reported that 

sage grouse have high seasonal fidelity to seasonal ranges and females return to the same area to nest each 

year. Promoting additional cattle concentrations to invade important nesting habitat will have negative 

effects on these birds, but then BLM provides no information on sage grouse use areas in relation to 

existing and proposed developments or to areas in good or poor condition. No analysis was done as to the 

effects of these disturbances combined with livestock grazing on sage grouse populations on these 

allotments. 

Beck and Mitchell (2000) and Hockett (2002) reviewed the effects of livestock grazing on sage grouse. 

They report that livestock, by consuming herbaceous vegetation and reducing grass cover needed to 

conceal grouse nests from predation, reduce grouse production. Ground squirrels favored by high levels 

of grazing, combined with drought conditions account for significant nest predation—but again this 

impact was not disclosed. The depletion of forbs and loss of associated insects can directly impact chick 

A27-576 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

survival. Mattise (1995) noted that “we have poor strategies for protecting important brood rearing habitat 

during severe drought conditions. Riparian areas, springs and seeps are not being managed to provide 

vegetative recovery and enhancement.” BLM should set standards in the RMP specifically designed to 

protect these resources so that they provide the habitat components need by sage grouse. Otherwise, the 

proposed decision would be counter to current science. 

Considerable local information is available about sage-grouse use areas in Wyoming (Lyon 2000, M. 

J.Holloran 2001-02 Study; Heath et al.,1997). Most of the available data that have been mapped are those 

on location of leks. There is general knowledge about sage-grouse seasonal habitat use areas outside of 

the lek locations, with Lyon (2000) presenting the best generalized overview. Braun (2002) noted the 

following for the development of the Pinedale RMP and they should be incorporated into the RMP: 

1. Winter— Focus should immediately be placed on locating and mapping sagegrouse winter-use areas 

throughout the area. This should have the highest priority, as over winter survival is critical to population 

maintenance. Maps should be prepared for both “average” or “normal” winters and severe winters which, 

happen every 7-10 years. Once these areas are located and mapped, they should be described using 

standard measures for live sagebrush canopy cover, height, etc. following the approach of Connelly et al. 

(2000). Once identified, these areas should receive special attention (for example, designation as “Areas 

of Critical Environmental Concern”) in order to reduce or prevent disturbance during winter, wild fire, 

and management activities that make them less useful to sage-grouse. Special attention should be given to 

any disturbance that reduces amount of live sagebrush, leaf surface, canopy cover, and height. (Which 

grazing does—authors words not Brauns). 

2. Leks--The available data on leks suggest that not all active lek sites have been located and that the 

status (active, inactive [< 2 years. > 2years]) of each site mapped is poorly known. Further, there are gaps 

(some leks are not counted every year) in the count data and number of counts/lek in a given year varied. 

The available long-term trend in numbers of cocks appears to be down but the problems identified make 

data analysis difficult. Since active sage-grouse leks are relatively easy to locate during late March and 

April, standard surveys of all areas within the proposed project area should be conducted and continued at 

3-year intervals. All known lek sites should be checked for activity in spring. Those classified as active 

should be counted (number of cocks) 3-4 times each spring at 7-10 day intervals starting in late Marchearly April, depending upon weather conditions, and continuing into early May. Those classified as 

inactive should be checked in late April/early May every 2-3 years to ascertain any change in status. UTM 

(or GIS) coordinates for all lek sites should be taken and plotted on base maps. 

3. Nesting-- Lyon (2000) describes habitats used for nesting. Because sage-grouse have been shown to 

nest at a variety of distances from active leks and use a variety of micro sites for nest placement, it is 

difficult to identify all nesting areas. Thus, the Connelly et al. (2000) guidelines should be followed to 

offer some protection to habitats useful for nesting at distances up to 3 miles from active leks. Since most 

actual nesting occurs within this distance (Braun et al. 1977) (with some nests at much greater distances), 

it is most reasonable to depict nesting habitat as all sagebrush areas with > 10 % live canopy cover of 

sagebrush (primarily A.tridentata vaseyana, A. t. wyomingensis, A. tripartita, A. nova, and A. cana 

depending upon location) and a healthy under story of native grasses and forbs. Since active lek sites can 

be located, identifying concentric areas within a three mile radius around each lek site that will include 

most nesting sites is presently the only reasonable method to map potential nesting areas. 

4. Brood-rearing--Broods, upon hatching, use areas close to the locations of successful nests and 

progressively move towards moist areas upon desiccation of vegetation in the uplands. A review of where 

broods have been observed in relation to known sources of water (at ground level) or at riparian sites 

along streams, springs, etc. should be done so that additional management consideration can be given to 

these areas. Management that should be in place includes movement of livestock to avoid degradation of 

Pinedale RMP A27-577 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

plant communities in moist sites and riparian areas and fencing to allow livestock access to water only in 

sites where erosion and plant community degradation would not be expected or could be controlled. Lyon 

(2000) suggests that early brood survival is a problem in the area she studied southwest of Pinedale. Early 

brood survival is most affected by insect and succulent forb availability within secure (good hiding cover 

provided by grasses and forbs) habitats (Connelly et al. 2000). Late brood rearing habitat is primarily in 

close proximity (< 1 mile) of sites with moisture and succulent forbs adjacent to escape cover provided by 

live sagebrush (Connelly et al.,2000). 

These scientific papers and reports provide a significant body of knowledge that BLM should have relied 

upon in addressing sage grouse needs and monitoring in the RMP. We also recommend the BLM review 

“A Blueprint for Sage-grouse Conservation and Recovery” by Braun (2006) and that the BLM comply 

with the recommendations in the “Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush 

Habitats” by Connely et. al. (2004) and make those recommendations standards for any activity that is 

proposed in sage grouse habitat. Only then can the public be assured that the BLM has complied with the 

requirements of its own sensitive species manual.

Response: The implementation of lek buffers, seasonal stipulations, NSO areas, and areas unavailable to 

leasing aim to effectively protect seasonal habitats for all sagebrush obligate species. Detailed analyses of 

impacts to sage-grouse from all activities that would take place within the planning area (including 

livestock grazing) are included in Chapter 4 of the draft EIS. Winter concentration maps are being 

developed by BLM and WGFD for incorporation into the approved plan. These areas do not occur in all 

of the sagebrush habitats because much of the sagebrush is generally covered with snow for 6 months of 

the year. The most important areas are the windswept areas where sagebrush is exposed. The best 

available data on sage-grouse leks were used in developing the draft EIS. Sage-grouse lek data have been 

updated and incorporated into the final EIS. Protection of leks is not limited only to the leks that were 

identified at the time the draft EIS was developed. Upon discovery of new leks, protection measures 

would be applied to those as well. Varying levels of protection of nesting habitat were analyzed in all 

management alternatives. An NSO stipulation within 3 miles of active leks was analyzed in Alternative 3 

of the draft EIS. Livestock grazing will be managed to meet the Standards for Rangeland Health, which 

are designed to achieve a sustainable, functioning rangeland ecosystem. BLM has incorporated the 

Connelly guidelines, to the extent practicable, given BLM’s requirement to manage multiple resources 

and resource uses. All available literature was reviewed and considered in development of the draft EIS. 

Comment: Guidelines for Management of Sage Grouse and Migrant Bird Habitat. These authors (Braun 

et al, Connelly et al, and Welch et al) have provided a variety of guidelines for management of sage 

grouse habitat. These include: 

• Sagebrush eradication should not be practiced. Treatments can be used to thin dense sagebrush 

stands to a range of sagebrush cover from 15% to 25%. Burns should be avoided in xeric 

Wyoming big sagebrush habitats). Only small burns to create mosaics in mountain big sagebrush 

should be contemplated and these are considered experimental. 

• Rehabilitation following wildfire or other disturbances should focus on re-establishing sagebrush 

and native herbaceous plants. Annual grass establishment following fire is detrimental. Grazing 

should not be allowed on seeded areas until plant recruitment has occurred. 

• Range seedings should focus on establishing forbs, native grasses and sagebrush. Monoculture 

seedings of crested wheatgrass and other non-natives are discouraged. 

• Applying insecticides to summer habitat is not recommended. 

A27-578 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

• Livestock use around water sources and wet meadows in brood rearing areas should be regulated 

through fencing or other management to restrict overuse. 

• Grazing practices should be adjusted to maintain residual grass growth essential for nest 

concealment and then delay grazing the same areas until after nesting. 

• Plot sage grouse use areas including leks, nesting areas, wintering sites, meadows and summer 

range or brooding areas on maps. 

• No sagebrush will be treated or removed until a comprehensive plan has been formulated for 

management of the area. 

• Sagebrush control projects will include provisions for long-term quantitative measurement of 

vegetation before and after to determine effects on habitat and whether objectives were met. 

• No sagebrush control projects will be done on areas where live cover is less than 20%, on steep 

slopes or upper slopes with skeletal soils where big sagebrush is less than 30 cm. 

• No sagebrush control along streams, meadows or intermittent drainages. A 100 meter strip of live 

sagebrush should be left on each edge of meadows and drainages. 

• When sagebrush control is found to be unavoidable, treatment measures should be applied in 

irregular patterns using topography and other ecological considerations. Widths of treated and 

untreated areas can vary except treated areas will not be wider than 30 meters and untreated areas 

will be at least as wide. 

• Manage breeding habitats to support 15 – 25% canopy cover of big sagebrush, perennial 

herbaceous cover ≥18 cm in height with ≥ 15% canopy cover of grasses and 

≥ 10% canopy cover of forbs. 

Partners in Flight (Paige and Ritter, 1999) provide management recommendations for sage grouse and 

migratory birds obligate to sagebrush-steppe. These include: 

• Identify and protect those habitats that still have a thriving community of native understory and 

sagebrush plants. 

• Maintain large, continuous blocks of unfragmented habitat 

• Maintain seeps, springs, wet meadows and riparian vegetation in a healthy state 

• Avoid practices that convert sagebrush to non-native grassland or farm land. 

• Maintain stands of sagebrush for a balance between shrub and perennial grass cover. 

• In large disturbed areas, sagebrush and perennial grasses may need to be reseeded to shorten 

recovery time. 

• To maintain bluebunch wheatgrass vigor, avoid grazing during the growing season until plants 

begin to cure. Bluebunch wheatgrass is especially sensitive to heavy grazing during the growing 

season. Recovery of these plants following heavy grazing during a single spring can require 8 

years under the best management and environmental conditions. 

• Grazing plans will depend on the current condition and plant composition of the area. Defer 

grazing until after crucial growth periods. Note that in the presence of cheatgrass, deferred 

grazing can favor the cheatgrass. 

Pinedale RMP A27-579 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

• For sage grouse maintain average grass height of at least 18 cm in May and early June. Sharptailed grouse require 20 cm. 

• Consider livestock exclusion from heavily damaged areas, particularly wet sites. 

• Livestock concentrations around water developments can increase cowbird parasitism. 

• Use fences with smooth top and bottom wires for exclosures around wet sites. 

Response: Currently, BLM is collecting baseline vegetation inventories on the effects of historic 

sagebrush treatments. This information, coupled with commenters’ statements, are and will be used to 

justify any future treatments needs including offsite mitigation projects.

Comment: Miller and Eddleman (2000) also provide an excellent review of sage grouse ecology, habitat 

and management. They emphasize that sage grouse habitat management plans must take into account 

landscape heterogeneity, site potential, site condition and habitat needs of sage grouse during different 

parts of their life cycle (breeding, nesting, brood rearing, wintering). They also stress the importance of 

accurate resource inventories and assessments before making management decisions as to when and how 

each community across the landscape should be managed. Grazing management plans must identify 

potential conflicts between sage grouse and livestock. Again, these specific management 

recommendations should be incorporated into the RMP and compliance should be made mandatory for 

any project proposed in sage grouse habitat. 

Furthermore, the DEIS ignores the impacts of livestock-caused weed invasion of areas near water sources, 

fences, bedding grounds, trails, and the associated spread of weeds outward by livestock 

transport/vectors, from these intensive zones of disturbance. This harms essential sage grouse habitats and 

the habitats of other special status species. The rampant cheatgrass spread in zones of fire or other 

disturbance will doom sage grouse and other sagebrush obligate species in these lands. As BLM has 

failed to adequately describe and assess the impacts of livestock in weed infestation and spread based on 

current science and site-specific data, it has not adequately evaluated impacts. 

We are particularly concerned that BLM has failed to consider the impacts associated with vegetation 

treatments across the planning area. For example, the DEIS notes the following: “The objective of most 

vegetation treatments is to reduce shrub cover and increase herbaceous forage production. Vegetation 

treatments are commonly designed to mimic natural wildland fires, which have been occurring on these 

rangelands for thousands of years. Currently the most common vegetation treatment is prescribed 

burning, which kills woody vegetation such as big sagebrush. Prescribed fires usually burn at lower 

temperatures than wildfires, enabling a much quicker recovery time for the surviving, fire-tolerant plant 

species. The ground surface temperature may damage, but usually does not destroy, the root crown of 

fire-tolerant perennial grasses. This enables herbaceous forage to flourish after the competition for light, 

nutrients, and water is removed. “Sagebrush treatments completed in the 1960s and 1970s involved 

herbicide spraying, which successfully removed sagebrush from several thousand acres. Sagebrush 

naturally reestablishes itself within its habitat following natural fire within 5 to 40 years. In the absence of 

natural fire cycles, vegetation treatments are needed to maintain the proper balance of shrub and 

herbaceous species on the rangelands. This benefits livestock that graze the forage, but also provides 

benefits to wildlife owing to increased habitat diversity, forage production and vigor, stream and spring 

flows, soil stability, and nutrient cycling. The use of vegetation treatments in sensitive sage-grouse habitat 

continues to be controversial, and any vegetation treatments in those areas would need to be designed to 

maintain or improve the specific components of the sagebrush plant communities that may be most 

limiting to the local sage-grouse populations (emphasis added). “The purpose of vegetation treatments 

since 1988 has been to create diversity in even-aged stands of sagebrush and improve big game winter 

range habitat, as well as increase the quantity and quality of forage for livestock. Since 1988, 8,700 acres 

A27-580 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

have been prescribed burned, 3,660 acres have had herbicide applied for brush control, and 4,440 acres 

have been treated mechanically (Table 3-4).” 

Response: Currently, BLM is collecting baseline vegetation inventories on the effects of historic 

sagebrush treatments. This information, coupled with commenters’ statements, are and will be used to 

justify any future treatments needs including offsite mitigation projects. The standards and guidelines or 

an ecosystem analysis approach to assess livestock grazing is meant to assess the viability of the habitat 

across the landscape. If problems are found, changes in management strategy are required.

Comment: In discussing the potential impacts of oil and gas development on page 3-124, the BLM fails 

to describe the significant increase in sage-grouse populations since 2003. According to the information 

presented in the Pinedale Anticline SDEIS, Figure 3.22-2, it appears sage-grouse populations on the Mesa 

and in the vicinity of PAPA and Jonah Field are at all time highs. The dramatic increase in the sagegrouse population since 2003, a time period that has included significant increases in oil and gas 

development in Jonah Field and PAPA, may indicate that oil and gas development is not adversely 

impacting sage-grouse to the extent previously disclosed, that BLM’s mitigation measures and 

management directives are effective, or that the slight decrease in sagegrouse populations in the early part 

of this decade was actually caused by factors other than oil and gas development. The BLM should revise 

page 3-124 to more accurately reflect the current trends and protections available for sage-grouse in the 

Pinedale Resource Area. 

Response: A few years of increased grouse production has not negated the overall nationwide sagegrouse historic declines. These increases have not substantially increased the sage-grouse population in 

the basin to pre-decline levels. The following peer-reviewed studies indicate energy-related activities 

have contributed to the decline: Braun, C. E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge, 2002, Oil and gas 

development in western North America: effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on 

sage grouse, Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 67:337-349; 

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, B. L. Walker, and J. M. Graham, in press, Greater sage-grouse winter 

habitat selection and energy development, Journal of Wildlife Management; Kaiser, R. C., 2006, 

Recruitment by greater sage-grouse in association with natural gas development in western Wyoming, 

Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming; Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson, 2003, Potential 

gas development impacts on sage-grouse nest initiation and movement, Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-

491; Walker, B.L., D.E. Naugle, and K.E. Doherty, in press, Greater sage-grouse population response to 

energy development and habitat loss, Journal of Wildlife Management.

Comment: The RMP DEIS also fails to describe the significant increase in sage-grouse populations since 

2003. According to the information presented in Figure 3.22-2 in the PAPA SDEIS, it appears sagegrouse populations on the Mesa and in the vicinity of PAPA and Jonah Field are at all time highs. The 

dramatic increase in the sage-grouse population since 2003, a time period that has included significant 

increases in oil and gas development in Jonah Field and PAPA, may indicate that oil and gas development 

is not adversely impacting sage-grouse to the extent previously considered, that BLM’s mitigation 

measures and management directives are effective, or that the slight decrease in sage-grouse populations 

in the early part of this decade was actually caused by factors other than oil and gas development. The 

BLM also fails to note the significance of two new active leks in the vicinity of Jonah Field and PAPA, 

suggesting populations of sage-grouse are effectively utilizing habitat outside areas potentially disturbed 

by oil and gas operations. The BLM should revise the RMP EIS to reflect this updated data and to more 

accurately reflect the current trends and protections available for sage-grouse in the Pinedale Resource 

Area. 

Response: A few years of increased grouse production has not negated the overall nationwide sagegrouse historic declines. These increases have not substantially increased the sage-grouse population in 

Pinedale RMP A27-581 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

the basin to pre-decline levels. The following peer-reviewed studies indicate energy-related activities 

have contributed to the decline: Braun, C. E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge, 2002, Oil and gas 

development in western North America: effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on 

sage grouse, Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 67:337-349; 

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, B. L. Walker, and J. M. Graham, in press, Greater sage-grouse winter 

habitat selection and energy development, Journal of Wildlife Management; Kaiser, R. C., 2006, 

Recruitment by greater sage-grouse in association with natural gas development in western Wyoming, 

Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming; Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson, 2003, Potential 

gas development impacts on sage-grouse nest initiation and movement, Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-

491; Walker, B.L., D.E. Naugle, and K.E. Doherty, in press, Greater sage-grouse population response to 

energy development and habitat loss, Journal of Wildlife Management.

Comment: As far as the sage grouse is especially one that’s a problem. Pretty much all alternatives, all 

the maps of the management areas and special recreational areas in the Alternative 4, the entire corridor 

from -- on the Green River and the New Fork are considered management areas and those are all 100 

percent private areas except for a few places where it corners in, and so I think that’s wrong. If those -- to 

assume that you’re going to manage the private area is wrong.

Response: BLM does not presume to manage private lands.

Comment: PAGE:2-143 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:Objective 2 In coordination with 

local conservation districts, maintain sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed greater sage-grouse 

source habitats to ensure long-term species sustainability and functioning habitats within the planning 

area. EXPLANATION:Much of the sage grouse habitat is on private land and coordination is necessary to 

facilitate habitat management. 

Response: BLM, NRCS, USFWS, WGFD, the Upper Green River Sage-Grouse Working Group, etc., are 

always willing to work with private landowners to coordinate habitat management techniques for the 

betterment of sage-grouse. 

Comment: PAGE:2-144 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:Revise: f. New power lines would be 

buried where economically and technologically feasible to minimize predation of sage grouse. 

EXPLANATION:Burying power lines is a minor contribution to sage grouse habitat and causes greater 

surface disturbance and loss of habitat. While it might reduce raptor predation, it does nothing for coyote 

predation. Better mitigation is to support predator control for both ravens and coyotes.

Response: The Upper Green River Sage-Grouse Working Group, of which BLM is a member, has 

initiated a project to determine the population extent and predation effects of ravens on sage-grouse. 

Predator control is costly, and unless it is continuous it does not achieve the desired results. As 

management agencies, we should be looking at why predator populations have increased. For example, 

are there more food sources than in the past? Are the generalist species out-competing the specialists, and 

is there a way to eliminate the food source?

Comment: PAGE:2-144 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:Revise FEIS to document need for 

restrictions. EXPLANATION: a,b,c,d,e,f h, and i put leases off limits for about 5 months out of the year. 

First, these restrictions cannot be enforced as to existing leases without these stipulations, Second, FEIS 

does not document that these are the least restrictive methods. IM 2005-069. Third, recent increases in 

sage grouse numbers and other science suggests that predators are a major factor, rather than undisturbed 

habitat. Fourth, much of the alarm was raised during drought and with increased precipitation, area has 

seen more grouse. Finally, RMP should delete all the restrictions and instead adopt performance based 

A27-582 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

standards tied to sage grouse numbers and healthy sage brush biome. If habitat is maintained and 

improved and predators controlled, then grouse numbers should take care of themselves.

Response: A few years of increased grouse production has not negated the overall nationwide sagegrouse historic declines. Predation is only one factor regarding sage-grouse population declines; 

starvation, dehydration, and stress also contribute. The entire RMP is based on a performance-based 

approach, and BMPs will only work if operators are willing to commit to them 100%. 

Comment: PAGE: 3-121, SECTION: 3.17.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Add discussion of raven, 

recognizing both its significant role as a predator and status as a pest species to be controlled. Ravens are 

also commonly found throughout the planning area. Ravens are predatory birds, and are classified as a 

pest in Wyoming. The raven is believed to be a significant factor in sage grouse predation. Ravens also 

benefit from poorly handled garbage.

Response: The Upper Green River Sage-Grouse Working Group, of which BLM is a member, has 

initiated a project to determine the population extent and predation effects of ravens on sage-grouse. 

Comment: PAGE: 3-123, SECTION: 3.17.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise: After nesting, the 

hens move to brood areas that support forb understory or succulent vegetation (i.e., riparian areas or 

irrigated fields, which are almost entirely in private ownership) and high populations of insects in late 

spring and late summer. EXPLANATION: Sage grouse use forb understory as much or more than 

“succulent vegetation.” Especially in the planning area, the riparian and irrigated fields are privately 

owned. Chapter 3 needs to accurately disclose private land within the boundaries of the planning area, 

rather than blend public land with private land.

Response: BLM and WGFD are collecting sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat use and location data for 

these habitats. The extent of sage-grouse use on private lands at this time is anecdotal, due to the lack of 

permission on a landscape basis to gather this data.

Comment: PAGE: 3-124, SECTION: 3.17.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Chapter 3 needs to reexamine causative factors in 1998 and 1999 declines. Population numbers have increased with reduction 

in drought area. Nevertheless, sage grouse predators are at an all time high.

Response: A few years of increased grouse production has not negated the overall nationwide sagegrouse historic declines. Predation is only one factor regarding sage-grouse population declines; 

starvation, dehydration, and stress also contribute. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-181 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: ADD Predators will continue 

to affect wildlife numbers, especially sage grouse. EXPLANATION: EIS must disclose impacts of 

predators on wildlife, especially sage grouse. EIS fails to disclose and address this significant impact on 

wildlife.

Response: The Upper Green River Sage-Grouse Working Group, of which BLM is a member, has 

initiated a project to determine the population extent and predation effects of ravens on sage-grouse. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-186 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Well densities exceeding 

one well per 699 acres are likely to lead to declines in male sage-grouse lek attendance (Holloran 2005). 

Overall declines in male lek attendance approached 100% when the distance from leks to drilling rigs, 

producing wells, and main haul roads decreased, in conjunction with the number of wells within 5 km and 

the total length of main haul roads within 3 km (attributed to traffic volume and vehicle activity during 

the strutting period) of the lek increased (Holloran 2005). Finally, active leks in energy-developed areas 

Pinedale RMP A27-583 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

are experiencing a lack of yearling male recruitment. Assuming a yearly male mortality of 50%, a lek 

could become inactive in 4–6 years if yearling sage-grouse recruitment does not occur (Kaiser 

2006).](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Again this discussion is not common to all and further is the 

subject of substantial disagreement within scientific community.

Response: All of these peer-reviewed studies have shown the same impacts as Holloran’s study. Braun, 

C. E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge, 2002, Oil and gas development in western North America: 

effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on sage grouse, Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 67:337-349; Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, B. L. 

Walker, and J. M. Graham, in press, Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy 

development, Journal of Wildlife Management; Kaiser, R. C., 2006, Recruitment by greater sage-grouse 

in association with natural gas development in western Wyoming, Thesis, University of Wyoming, 

Laramie, Wyoming; Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson, 2003, Potential gas development impacts on sagegrouse nest initiation and movement, Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491; Walker, B.L., D.E. Naugle, 

and K.E. Doherty, in press, Greater sage-grouse population response to energy development and habitat 

loss, Journal of Wildlife Management.

Comment: Recommended Mitigation Measures: 3. Adherence to time of use for restriction of activities 

from 8:00 PM through 8:00 AM during the breeding and nesting periods should be strictly monitored and 

enforced. This is the minimum needed to maintain sage-grouse populations in this area.

Response: This restriction is currently being used and will be better enforced now that a law enforcement 

office is being added for the planning area.

Comment: Chapter 4 Page 57 1st paragraph Commentor WGFD The time frame for activities around 

active leks is 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. not midnight to 9:00 a.m. 

Response: Corrections have been made to Chapter 4. 

Comment: Recommendation 3: Larger management areas with no surface occupancy from oil and gas 

development must be set up in the course of this RMP process to protect wildlife. Areas must include 

winter, crucial winter, transitional, migratory and parturition habitats for ungulates and winter, breeding, 

nesting and rearing habitats for sage-grouse. No exceptions should be granted within these areas. No 

conversions should be allowed to other oil and gas management areas without a full supplemental EIS.

Response: The language for conversion, and the areas available for oil and gas leasing, have been 

modified in the final EIS. 

Comment: The DEIS indicates that surface-disturbance activities and oil and gas development may occur 

within %a mile of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) leks within areas designated as 

“intensively developed oil and gas fields.” The Service is concerned that disruptive activity within close 

proximity to sage-grouse leks may result in non-use of those traditional lekking areas and lead to 

fragmentation of sage-grouse habitat and disappearance of this species from the surrounding landscape. 

Under the preferred alternative of the proposed RMP, these impacts could be exacerbated by the fact that 

areas designated by the Bureau as “minimally developed oil and gas areas” could receive “intensively 

developed oil and gas field” status, if an oil and gas discovery is made in those areas currently designated 

as “minimally developed”.

Response: BLM will comply with the WAFWA MOU to conserve the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. 

A27-584 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: REFERENCE: Appendix 2 – 2. Wildlife Mitigation Guideline, pg A2-3 DESCRIPTION OF 

ISSUE: The guidelines use the term “important habitat” where as in other sections of the document the 

term crucial or critical habitat is used. SUGGESTED REVISION/ACTION: The document seems to use 

the terms important or crucial randomly and appear to use them interchangeably which they aren’t based 

on the definitions in the glossary.

Response: These habitat designations are not random. In some cases, the habitat designations come from 

WGFD; other designations are labeled important because they are important seasonal habitats. For 

example, sage-grouse lekking, nesting, brood rearing, and wintering habitats are all equally important to 

the continued success of the bird.

Comment: The restrictions on development attributable to wildlife objectives under Alternative 3 are 

inappropriate. Even in Intensively Developed Fields such as PAPA, the BLM would unreasonably restrict 

ongoing development. Limiting vehicle use to existing roads and trails within intensively developed fields 

is unreasonable and unnecessary, especially given the fact APC has not yet fully developed its acreage on 

the eastern and western edges of the PAPA. Requiring NSO stipulations within three miles of sage grouse 

leks is similarly unnecessary and conflicts with current BLM state-wide policy. The BLM has not mapped 

or identified sage grouse wintering areas.

Response: Alternative 3 is the conservation alternative—all wildlife objectives were based on published 

scientific research conducted within the planning area. It is reasonable, and required under NEPA, to 

analyze an alternative that could restrict oil and gas activities. 

Comment: The BLM must revise its management of Intensively Developed Fields and Minimally 

Developed Areas under Alternative 4. The BLM must insert the world “reasonably” before the word 

minimize wherever the word is used in the description of the alternative. For example, on pages 143-144, 

the BLM indicates that oil and gas operations in Intensively Developed Fields will be managed to 

minimize impacts on sage grouse. Construed literally, this language could be viewed as limiting the 

BLM’s flexibility and the operators’ ability to effectively develop a lease. The language could also create 

additional litigation and paperwork for the BLM because the agency would be required to demonstrate for 

each oil and gas project how impacts to various resources, such as sage grouse or noise, were minimized.

Response: The concept of adaptive management is meant to expand the flexibility of management 

options between the operators and BLM. The final EIS has been revised to apply performance-based 

management to the activity plan level, where it is more appropriate, rather than the RMP level. 

Comment: PAGE: G-7 CHANGE: DOCUMENTED LEK – Any lek that has been identified as Active, 

Inactive, [Unknown,](STRIKEOUT) or Occupied. EXPLANATION: By definition, an unknown lek is 

one that has not been documented, G-24 line 17-18, and definition needs to be corrected.

Response: These leks have been identified as active in the past and are known to contain strutting birds; 

however, they may not have been surveyed for activity that season.

Comment: PAGE: G-1 CHANGE: ABANDONED LEK - A lek in an otherwise suitable habitat that has 

not been active [during a consecutive ten-year period](STRIKEOUT). Before a lek is designated 

“abandoned” it must be confirmed as “inactive” (see definition under “Inactive Lek”) [in at least four 

non-consecutive strutting seasons spanning ten years.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: This definition 

should be revised to reflect the outcome based management principles under which the RMP is being 

developed. The terms are prescriptive and should be omitted. The fact that definition was taken from 

expired Wyoming IM 2004-057 does not validate the definition. An IM cannot provide a stand alone 

Pinedale RMP A27-585 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

justification for BLM’s definition, especially expired, supervisory instructions of a state office. BLM’s 

definition must be supported by a rational basis. See Fallini et al., 162 IBLA 10, 36, 44 (2004).

Response: This IM had been incorporated into the 1988 RMP thorough a maintenance action, which is 

within our legal rights. Until this document is finalized, the 1988 RMP still dictates operational guidance. 

BLM and WGFD approved these definitions. The management direction for this RMP is still prescriptive 

and therefore defining lek activity is perfectly acceptable.

Comment: Analysis and Other Management Issues 1. Habitat guidelines published by Connelly et al. 

(2000) should be incorporated into preparation of a “desired future condition” to be achieved to improve 

nest success and early chick sage-grouse survival. These Guidelines represent the state of knowledge 

about greater sage-grouse and are based on published studies. This is the minimum needed to enhance 

sage-grouse populations in this area. 

Response: Appendix 3 contains mitigation measures and operating standards for sage-grouse habitats. 

The appendix will be updated over time as additional mitigation measures are developed. 

Eagles, Raptors, Migratory Birds 

Comment: Golden eagles, their nests and young are strictly protected under the Bald Eagle Protection 

Act (16 USC 668a-d). This species is very popular with the wildlife viewing public, and conversely has 

historically suffered from shooting as well as poisoning directed at terrestrial predators. The maintenance 

of viable golden eagle populations should be an important consideration in the new RMP. Conservation 

efforts should focus on protecting nest sites and important foraging areas, such as prairie dog colonies. 

Golden eagles are highly territorial. Even when surface-disturbing activities such as strip mining are 

located away from golden eagle nest sites, the destruction of important foraging habitats, such as prairie 

dog colonies, within the territory of nesting pairs can be a major problem for the viability of nesting 

golden eagles (Tyus and Lockhart 1979). 

Response: BLM is required to uphold the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Act, 

and the 6840 BLM sensitive species manual (in which the white-tailed prairie dog is listed). 

Comment: The primary impact to raptor populations is direct disturbance of raptors on the nest, leading 

to reductions or loss of viability for eggs or nestlings. Disturbance of nesting raptors may cause nest 

abandonment, damage to the eggs, subject eggs or nestlings to cooling, overheating, or dehydration 

leading to mortality, prevent young nestlings from receiving sufficient feedings to remain viable, and 

cause premature fledging (Parrish et al. 1994). Thus, the BLM should establish adequate nest buffers (on 

the order of 2 miles in diameter) around nest sites, preventing all construction of developments (such as 

wells and roads) that would lead to future disturbance of nesting raptors through focusing human 

activities in these areas. Seasonal restrictions are insufficient; a well or road constructed outside the 

nesting season is still likely to lead to nest abandonment or reductions in recruitment due to disturbance 

from vehicle traffic that does occur during the nesting period. The overall landscape-scale effects of 

widespread industrialization threaten the viability of raptor populations through habitat loss and 

fragmentation. Nest buffers currently in force are unlikely to safeguard the viability of native raptors in 

the Pinedale planning area. 

Response: Currently, BLM has found no literature that supports a 2-mile raptor nesting buffer. In 

addition, BLM is committed to protecting raptors and other migratory birds from the actions you have 

described under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (of 1918) (MBTA). 

Comment: Pg. 2-151 states that prior to initiating surface disturbing actives raptor surveys would be 

conducted within a one mile radius of the proposed activity. c. states that activities would be designed and 

A27-586 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

mitigated to prevent take of raptors. These requirements are ignored in the impacts analysis found in Ch 4 

(pg 4-211), specifically: Before initiation of surface disturbing activities within potential raptor habitat, 

surveys would be conducted for nesting, roosting, and foraging activity within a half-mile radius of the 

proposed activity. This approach would preclude protection of ferruginous hawk and bald eagle nests that 

require a 1-mile buffer from a proposed disturbance during the nesting and winter roosting periods. This 

suggests that new nests found 0.5 to 1 mile from the proposed activity could be adversely affected simply 

because their presence was not known, which is unacceptable under the “take” provisions of the MBTA 

and the ESA. Failed mitigation measures for raptors could result in take (violation of the MBTA). As new 

mitigation measures for raptors are developed, preventing take of raptors would present a great challenge. 

These same protective requirements are found in each of the other development scenarios, Minimally 

Developed Areas, Large Block NSO and Unavailable. The Ch. 4 analysis of potential impacts found on 

pg 4-211, and copied above, must be re-written to reflect the surveys required for all levels of exploration 

and development, and reflect that protection for raptors would extend to one mile around proposed 

activities. These requirements are intended to preclude “take”. Unavailable Areas This section has two 

requirements identified as “c”, the second is written in a different format from the corresponding 

requirement found in the Large Block NSO section and should be rewritten to be consistent with the 

Large Block NSO verbiage. This entire section should be rewritten to reduce redundancy and eliminate 

conflict, for example, “f” “prohibit raptors from successfully fledging offspring would be prohibited” is 

mitigated by the implementation of the “b”, “c” and “e” requirements.

Response: BLM intends to protect raptors to the fullest extent of its management authority in all four of 

the designated areas to prevent a violation under the MBTA. The impact analysis has been updated in the 

final EIS. 

Comment: PAGE:2-149, RECOMMENDED CHANGE:Revise: 1. Mountain plover: Surveys 

demonstrating nesting presence could result in surface disturbing activities being prohibited from April 10 

to July 10 on a case-by case-basis. EXPLANATION: Plovers are found in cultivated fields so surface 

disturbance is not harmful. It is reasonable to limit surface disturbance at nest sites.

Response: This COA is to protect mountain plover nests from surface-disturbing activities during the 

nesting season. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has found that mountain plovers do nest frequently in 

cultivated fields, and it has a strong program working with ranchers to prevent activities from destroying 

nests during the haying season.

Comment: The DEIS indicates that the Bureau will have different levels of protection for raptor nests 

depending on where the nests are located within the Bureau’s four designated area categories: Intensively 

Developed Fields, Minimally Developed Areas, Large Block No Surface Occupancy (NSO) Areas, or 

Unavailable Areas. The Service wishes to remind the Bureau that disruption of raptors during nesting may 

result in a violation of the MBTA. The Service recommends using adequate buffer zones and seasonal 

timing stipulations to protect nesting raptors in all areas. under the Bureau’s management authority.

Response: BLM intends to protect raptors to the fullest extent of our management authority in all four of 

the designated areas to prevent a violation under the MBTA. The management actions for raptors have 

been changed to reflect this. 

Comment: REFERENCE: Wildlife and Fisheries Pg. 4-211 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: The document 

states that it “...is unacceptable under the take provision of the MBTA and ESA...” SUGGESTED 

REVISION/ACTION: This statement is incorrect and should be edited to correctly state that the MBTA 

protects migratory birds and there is no provision for “take”. The majority of the protected species nests 

are only covered under MBTA when the nest is active (eggs or young).

Pinedale RMP A27-587 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Response: The MBTA does not permit “take”, which means that you cannot allow it to happen. Under 

stringent circumstances you can request a “take” permit from USFWS. The final EIS has been revised.

Comment: Migratory Bird Nesting Habitat: The draft RMP fails to show the presence and habitat of sand 

hill cranes, blue herons, trumpeter swans, and ducks. The abundance of spring fed ponds, snow ponds, 

riparian areas, and creeks create an ideal environment for migratory birds in this area. The lack of 

disturbances allow these animals to enjoy a safe place to be. This area is quite unsuitable for leasing and 

mineral development.

Response: The wildlife information has been updated in the final EIS. The areas unavailable for oil and 

gas leasing have been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: Welch (2002) compared paired plots throughout the West and concluded that the burning of 

sagebrush reduces avian abundance and diversity. Birds found only in unburned sagebrush sites included 

American kestrel, Brewer’s sparrow, broad-tailed hummingbird, sage grouse, mountain bluebird, sage 

sparrow, sage thrasher, and Swainson’s hawk, while burrowing owl was among birds found only on 

burned sites (Welch 2002). Prescribed burn projects, if planned at all under current climate conditions, 

should be conducted in a manner that does not threaten the viability of sagebrush obligate passerines.

Response: Prescribed burning projects would not be conducted during the passerine nesting season; in 

addition, most burning would occur during the fall due to moisture index and weather patterns.

Comment: PAGE: A18-8 SECTION: Bald eagle RECOMMENDED CHANGE: These provisions shall 

not apply if the bald eagle is delisted. EXPLANATION: RMP should reflect the fact that a 

recommendation to delist the bald eagle has been pending for several years.

Response: The current conservation measures found in the Wyoming Statewide Programmatic Bald 

Eagle Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion (or other recent Biological Opinions [BOs]) 

containing bald eagles, will remain in effect until the national USFWS office develops the use of permits 

if “take” of a bald eagle is anticipated, but unavoidable. Currently, there is no provision for “take” of bald 

eagles under the MBTA or the BGEPA. By continuing the use of current practices to limit disturbance to 

bald eagles (nesting and roosting areas), BLM and the various activities that BLM authorizes will remain 

compliant with the MBTA and the BGEPA. The USFWS is in the process of preparing regulations that 

would authorize, under limited circumstances, the use of permits if “take” of an eagle is anticipated, but 

unavoidable. Additionally, after August 8, 2007, USFWS will have a regulatory mechanism in place to 

honor existing “take” authorizations under the ESA for bald eagles. During the interim period, until 

USFWS completes a rulemaking for permits under the BGEPA, they do not intend to prosecute BLM for 

incidental “take” of any bald eagle under the MBTA or BGEPA, if such take is in full compliance with 

the terms and conditions of an incidental take statement issued to the action agency or applicant under the 

authority of Section 7(b)(4) of the ESA or a permit issued under the authority of Section 10(a)(1)(B) of 

the ESA. Therefore, BLM will continue to apply the conservation measures it has in the past until 

USFWS provides a way for unintentional, unavoidable “take” to occur.

Comment: PAGE: G-10 CHANGE: [HISTORICAL RAPTOR NESTS - Any raptor nest or site that has 

been destroyed, but was historically recorded and documented. Temporal and spatial limitations will not 

apply.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: This definition appears to reference volunteer programs which 

check historical nest sites for recent activity. Volunteer programs bear no relevance to RMP management 

decisions, and the definition should be stricken.

Response: The source of the nest site information is not of significance as long as the nest site locations 

were validated. Recent field surveys have verified that most of these historical locations are correct.

A27-588 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: The maintenance of avian biodiversity is best approached at the ecosystem scale. Germano 

and Lawhead (1986) found that bird diversity was highest in pinion juniper scrub and lowest in grassland, 

with sagebrush and shadscale-greasewood showing intermediate values. In one study, bird diversity was 

positively correlated with vertical habitat diversity but not patch heterogeneity (Germano and Lawhead 

1986). The new RMP should have as one of its goals to maintain the viability and distribution of all avian 

species native to the region.

Response: See objective 5, page 2-150, this objective is set to maintain the distribution and habitats of the 

species mentioned.

Comment: This comment is from page 19. The BLM has historically mapped and surveyed for plover 

nesting areas on a catch-as-catch-can basis, limiting efforts to lands slated for imminent development 

projects. A broader and more comprehensive survey of nesting plovers by trained personnel is needed 

throughout the planning area. 

Response: BLM has plans to conduct planning area–wide surveys, although it has been limited in the past 

by personnel, time, and funding issues.

Pronghorn 

Comment: Vagrant lichens may be important pronghorn winter forage on windblown benches during 

severe winters (Thomas and Rosentreter 1992), and these lichens are significantly reduced through 

trampling by cattle and eliminated by domestic sheep grazing. The relationship between pronghorns and 

vagrant lichens may be commensal, as pronghorns may also assist in the dispersal of vagrant lichens 

(Rosentreter 1997). 

Although vagrant lichens have apparently been studied little in Wyoming, they are widespread in other 

cold-desert shrubsteppes in the Great Basin province. In Wyoming, occurrences have been recorded for 

Aspicilia fruticulosa in Uinta County (Rosentreter 1993), for Dermatocarpon reticulatum in Yellowstone 

National Park and the Bighorn Basin (Rosentreter and McCune 1992). Dermatocarpon species have been 

found in sagebrush steppe habitats associated with pools of standing water in winter and spring for the 

interior Columbia River Basin (Rosentreter and McCune 1992). Surveys should be undertaken to identify 

the occurrence and distribution of vagrant lichens of the taxa Aspicilia, Dermatocarpon, Masonhalea, and 

Xanthoparmelia , occurring in cold deserts in the western U.S. (Rosentreter 1993) within the lands 

managed by the Pinedale Field Office, particularly in cold desert shrubsteppe habitats and on windblown 

ridges. Rosentreter (1997) proposed a number of management recommendations for conserving vagrant 

lichen populations, and we endorse these recommendations. Further study of the distribution and 

abundance of vagrant lichens on pronghorn winter ranges in the planning area is needed.

Response: Alternative 3 and all of the areas unavailable for leasing and NSO areas aim to effectively 

protect all big game habitats. BLM is not in a position to initiate studies on lichens, but would incorporate 

findings produced by researchers into future management.

Comment: Barbed-wire fences are known to be a major impediment to pronghorn migration and 

dispersal. Taylor (1975) reported, “Fences were an important factor preventing optimum range use by 

antelope” in the Red Desert (p. 1). He added that “[u]npublished department data indicate that the 

wintering areas have been reduced by roughly one half because of fences” (p.2). Bruns (1977) found that 

fences are major impediments to winter travel, as are roadways with high traffic volume. Fences also aid 

coyotes in catching pronghorns (e.g., McNay and O’Gara 1982), potentially inflating predation losses. 

Taylor (1975) recommended that “Fences which cross migration routes should be removed or at least 

modified to allow ready passage by pronghorns under adverse weather conditions...” (p. 47). Bruns 

(1977) recommend a minimum clearance of 46 cm and a barbless lower strand for fences. Rosentreter 

Pinedale RMP A27-589 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

(1997) recommended that fences which could affect pronghorn dispersal be modified so that the bottom 

wire is smooth (not barbed) and is kept more than 60 cm (24 inches) above the ground. Under this 

alternative, there should be no new fence construction, illegal fences should be removed, and all 

remaining fences should at least conform to antelope passage requirements set forth by WGFD. 

Response: The BLM Manual Handbook H-1741-1 fencing guidelines will be adhered to on all BLM 

lands. In addition, efforts to mitigate the major impediments along migration routes are currently being 

investigated.

Comment: Enclosed is a series of maps showing pronghorn use of the RMP area based on GPS locations 

obtained from our research. It is our hope that this information will inform sound management decisions 

by the BLM that support wildlife and wildlife habitat in the Upper Green River Basin. Thank you again 

for the opportunity to provide these comments.

Response: This information has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: Examples of species specific information on fragmentation and impacts from roads and oil 

and gas development from field biologists and the scientific literature that should be considered in this 

RMP include the following. 

Pronghorn Impacts: The discussion in the Draft RMP of pronghorn disturbance from roads and 

development was concerning, particularly the statement that “While there are few published studies on 

the reaction of pronghorn to disruptive human activities, roads, fences and pipelines are known to 

fragment habitat and impede or block pronghorn movement.” (Draft RMP, p. 4-255). We agree that fewer 

biological studies are available for pronghorn than some other species mentioned in the Draft RMP, but 

significant information is available. 

 Pronghorn are a species that must be able to move freely across an open landscape for food, habitat, and 

mates. Past management planning by the BLM suggests that route densities exceeding lmi/mi2 will cause 

negative impacts on pronghorn populations (BLM 1999). Wyoming Game and Fish Department (2007) 

note that pronghorn are particularly flight sensitive and avoid areas of dense energy development. The 

agency cites pronghorn avoidance disturbance distances that “range from 0.25 mi (Autenrieth 1983) to 0.6 

mi (Easterly et al. 1991).” 

A study in central Arizona showed that pronghorn generally exhibited a weak avoidance of areas within 

3,168 feet of a maintained road, as well as areas near non-maintained dirt roads and four¬wheel-drive 

trails (Ockenfels et al. 1994). The same study observed that males (and perhaps females) avoided habitat 

within 0.25 miles of highways. Additionally, pronghorn may be more strongly affected by the noise and 

activity associated with a road than by the road bed itself (Ockenfels et al. 1994), suggesting that temporal 

occupancy restrictions are particularly important. 

A study of pronghorn from the University of Wyoming for the Wyoming Department of Transportation 

Research Center demonstrated that pronghorn tend to occupy areas with lower densities of primary roads 

and other rights of way (Sheldon et al. 2006). This study also supports discussion that pronghorn strongly 

avoid fencing and fencing along paved roads. Van Riper and Ockenfels (1998) found that in more than 

3,000 movements that were recorded, not one pronghorn ever crossed a fenced road. 

Perhaps the most significant research on pronghorn and oil and gas development is an ongoing study by 

Berger et al. (2006) in the Pindale RA. The research suggests that the configuration and density of well 

pads and other surface disturbances adversely affect pronghorn habitat use. This paper documents 

findings from the first year of a 5 year monitoring study funded by oil and gas companies and done in 

A27-590 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

coordination with wildlife managers at the BLM and Wyoming Fish and Game Department. A subset of 

the results from the report includes: “A growing array of gas fields, roads and attendant human 

infrastructure is altering the suitability of habitat for wildlife. continual fracturing of previously 

undisturbed lands is leading to reduced usage and abandonment of habitat parcels, particularly those less 

than - 600 acres in size. 

Snow depth in excess of - 20 centimeters affects use of local habitats. However, once the density of gas 

wells and attendant infrastructure reaches a threshold, pronghorn no longer us these areas irrespective of 

snow depth. Based on 56,992 data points generated from global positioning system (GPS) radio collars, 

none of the collared animals used areas within the Jonah Gas Field. Pronghorn generally shunned 

concentrated gas fields, and there was no evidence to suggest animals altered their 24-hour activity 

patterns to utilize these areas at night when human disturbance was reduced.” (Berger 2006). An updated 

report including the second year’s field work is due out shortly and should be considered in developing 

the final alternative for the Pinedale RMP. While it is important to acknowledge the latest science on 

wildlife impacts, this information is of limited value as a simple discussion in the Environmental 

Consequences chapter of the Draft RMP. Its real value is in building a knowledge base to draw on for the 

process of crafting management alternatives. The BLM acted arbitrarily and failed to meet its 

requirements to fully consider the best science in crafting and evaluating management alternatives was 

used to shape and to evaluate alternatives.

Response: The impact analysis has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: The designation of a new ACEC at Trapper’s Point encompassing 9,540 acres that would 

permanently preserve from development the pronghorn migration bottleneck. We believe that the 

maximum amount of protection is required at this site. Indeed, our continuing studies demonstrate 

perceived threats by pronghorn when they move through this area, as evidenced by the speed at which 

they travel and their reduced foraging rates (Figure 1). A further narrowing of the available habitat will 

only exacerbate energetic demands as they travel through this area. 

Response: BLM finds that the Trapper’s Point ACEC as proposed in the Preferred Alternative in the draft 

EIS is appropriate. The areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing have been revised in the final EIS; this 

would help to provide further protection of habitats outside the proposed ACEC area. 

Comment: The Wildlife Conservation Society would support a Resource Management Plan that 

preserves and protects functioning pronghorn crucial winter ranges, migration routes and bottlenecks; 

maintains and enforces seasonal stipulations on development; minimizes the development footprint 

through directional drilling and clustering of infrastructure; incorporates transportation planning to reduce 

road density; designates portions of the planning area as unavailable for oil and gas leasing in response to 

the identified resource needs of pronghorn; and sets quantifiable thresholds for impacts to wildlife. Maps 

and figures attached to email

Response: The draft EIS considers most or all of these suggestions. It is unfortunate that gas fields 

already exist in some areas of important pronghorn habitat, so that wildlife habitat characteristics are not 

the only consideration in devising areas unavailable for leasing. Seasonal stipulations protect individuals, 

not habitats. When development carried out in the unrestricted season reaches a density that makes the 

habitat unattractive to wildlife, there is little or no benefit to be gained from seasonal stipulations.

Comment: While competition for forage between pronghorns and cattle or wild horses is rarely an issue, 

access to water may be a focal point for conflict between these species. Taylor (1972) reported that 

antelope are quite wary and easily disturbed when watering. In the Red Desert, pronghorns avoid water 

Pinedale RMP A27-591 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

sources when they were crowded with domestic cattle or wild horses (Miller 1980). Water developments 

that minimize crowding may be beneficial for pronghorns. 

Response: Currently the JIO management team is looking at water developments that are beneficial to 

wildlife and livestock to decrease pressure in existing areas.

Deer 

Comment: Re: Mule Deer Seasonal Range and Migration Corridors This map shows the extent of Mule 

Deer usage and migration from the Rim east to the Green River. This is an important area of SpringSummer-Fall range that is not shown on the draft BLM RMP. On the lower portion of the map is shown a 

large area of Crucial Winter/Yearlong Mule Deer range which, is not shown on the BLM draft. The Mule 

Deer begin to stream through this area around early May; depending upon snowpack. The Mule Deer will 

graze across these ranges until the snow melts sufficiently to allow them to access to the higher elevations 

where many will migrate to their summer areas. By late May we see the does up in our aspen and pine 

forests where they will calve/fawn. After calving these Mule Deer range from the wooded areas of our 

ranch to the National Forest throughout the summer. During the Summer the Mule Deer come out in the 

mornings and evenings to graze on the open rolling hills below the woods. In the Fall there will be a 

constant stream of deer migrating through the open areas during the morning and evening. The Hay 

Draw/Hay Gulch area, just east of Highway 191, is of special importance due to the combination of trees, 

forage, and water. The Spring, Summer, and Fall utilization of the Rim to Green River by Mule Deer is a 

very good sign of a vital healthy habitat that should not be leased and disrupted. I would like you to know 

that I am strongly against allowing any mineral leasing in the Upper Green, Upper New Fork, and Hoback 

Rim areas. This is some of the most beautiful country in the United States, why ruin it? The wintering 

grounds for antelope, deer, and sage chickens has already been destroyed south of Pinedale. Now you 

want to take away the home for the elk also. The crystal clear streams and lakes will fill with mud and 

debris from run off and erosion. Trout fishing will be destroyed. Please don’t allowing leasing or drilling 

in these pristine areas.

Response: Updated migration corridor maps are being developed between BLM and WGFD and the 

decisions will be updated to protect the corridors and bottlenecks. WGFD re-drew the big game seasonal 

maps in 2006 and the maps within this document reflect these changes.

Comment: If I am correctly interpreting maps 2-7,8,9 and maps 2-15 and 16, the “large block NSO 

areas” include very little critical pronghorn crucial winter range and only a small portion of mule deer 

crucial winter range. Thus, for these big game animals, little protection of crucial habitat is afforded by 

this designation. The BLM should clarify just how much crucial big game habitat would potentially be 

afforded protection under the “large block NSO” designation. Another problem with these areas is that 

they are linked by only one known migration corridor, the Trapper’s Point Bottleneck, that is also in 

jeopardy of being developed under Alternative 4 because of the size reduction in the Trapper’s Point 

ACEC. Page 4-218 indicates that the Trapper’s Point migration area will be protected under Alternative 3 

because of the size of the ACEC that extends through the staging and feeding areas at Cora Butte. 

Alternative 4 compromises this area by reducing the size of the ACEC and narrative suggests that the area 

will be protected from “surface disturbing activities and subsequent habitat fragmentation would not 

occur,” but there is no indication as to how this protection will occur. The document acknowledges the 

importance of this migration area and on page 4-255 reports that 6 of 8 known migration corridors in the 

planning area have already been compromised. The RMP/DEIS must specify how the remaining two 

migration corridors, one of which I assume is the Trapper’s Point Bottleneck, will be protected under 

Alternative 4. Sawyer et al. (2005) discuss the importance of migration routes for mule deer and 

pronghorn in the Pinedale area. In my opinion the ACEC in Alternative 3 should not be compromised 

because of the importance of this area to migrating mule deer and pronghorn populations. My experience 

working with mule deer in Colorado’s Piceance Basin (Garrott et al. 1987) and with pronghorn in 

A27-592 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Wyoming’s Red Desert (Alldredge and Deblinger 1988) verifies the importance of both feeding and 

staging areas for these big game animals. Transition ranges provide the last opportunity for animals to 

build energy reserves prior to the onset of winter and thus enhancing over-winter survival. These areas are 

also the first ranges encountered during spring migration and the place where animals, especially females 

in late stages of pregnancy, can begin to replenish both lean and fat body mass following winter 

catabolism (Torbit et al. 1985). The importance of maintaining these areas is acknowledged in the DEIS 

(4-256) with the following statement, “disturbance threshold and the result of further surface disturbance 

and habitat fragmentation regarding these populations is unknown.

Response: Table 2-33 on pages 2-183 through 2-190, Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional 

Requirements by Hydrocarbon Potential (Approximate Federal Subsurface Acres) for Coalbed Natural 

Gas, indicates the acres of crucial winter range that will have an NSO designation. The protection is 

afforded through making the area unavailable for oil and gas leasing and prohibiting surface-disturbing 

activities, land disposal, and mineral location. Updated migration corridor maps are being developed 

between BLM and WGFD, and the decisions will be updated to protect the corridors and bottlenecks.

Comment: The document repeatedly assumes that big game animals will move to alternate habitats when 

displaced by anthropogenic activities (for example, see pages 4-210, 4-225). Page 4-259 acknowledges 

that there are few alternative habitats, thus, if alternate habitats do exist, they need to be identified, their 

condition and current use discussed. If, in fact, these alternative habitats are available and have the ability 

to support additional displaced animals, the public needs to be assured of this and assured that displaced 

animals can access the new habitats and that these habitats will be protected from future disturbance. 

Sawyer et al. (2006) did demonstrate mule deer shifting use from preferred, to less preferred habitats as 

energy development proceeded but they also reported a 46% reduction in numbers of animals wintering 

on the mesa portion of the Pinedale Anticline. They further determined, unequivocally, that mule deer 

were not simply moving to alternative habitats in substantial numbers when development occurred. These 

findings might suggest that habitats are already saturated to carrying capacity and that there are actually 

limited alternative habitats available to support displaced animals. Concentrating animals in habitats can 

decrease over-winter survival and ultimately lead to population reductions as discussed by Bartmann et al. 

(1992), White et al. (1987) and Hobbs (1989).

Response: The document assumes displacement of animals due to human activity but does not assume 

that other suitable habitats exist for displaced animals to occupy. The impact analysis states that, over 

time, displaced animals would occupy less suitable habitats and that population reductions would be the 

ultimate result.

Comment: Habitat fragmentation is only mentioned in the document and there is no attempt to assess 

impacts to big game animals resulting from fragmentation of habitats. Paragraph 1 on page 4-255 

speculates that habitat fragmentation may be so extensive that isolated populations of big game animals 

will remain only in areas where habitats remain intact. If this is the case, then the BLM must more 

thoroughly discuss and consider habitat fragmentation in the DEIS. Quite likely the reduction in numbers 

of mule deer wintering on the Pinedale Anticline in light of a 2% direct habitat disturbance (Sawyer et al. 

2006) is at least partially explained by fragmentation of habitats as well as avoidance of disturbed areas. 

The BLM has failed to adequately discuss and consider implications of habitat fragmentation that will 

result from implementation of any of their alternatives. The following references provide insights into 

fragmentation and use of that information with GIS technology would allow a better assessment of the 

impacts to big game resulting from habitat fragmentation (Franklin et al. 2002, D’Eon et al. 2002, 

McGarigal and Cushman 2002 and Jaeger 2000). 

Response: BLM acknowledges in the impacts analysis that there are impacts to the animals due to habitat 

fragmentation, but BLM cannot determine at this time what the population impacts will be.

Pinedale RMP A27-593 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Comment: Why a small area north of Cora and another small area north of Mema are identified as mule 

deer parturition areas and nowhere else has amazed me since the original RMP. Apparently no further 

investigation of these crucial ranges has been done in 20 years. 

Response: BLM receives big game seasonal habitat information from WGFD. WGFD updated the crucial 

winter ranges in 2006; the Department is currently remapping the parturition habitats.

Comment: This map shows the extent of Mule Deer usage and migration from the Rim east to the Green 

River. This is an important area of Spring-Summer-Fall range that is not shown on the draft BLM RMP. 

On the lower portion of the map is shown a large area of Crucial Winter/Yearlong Mule Deer range 

which, is not shown on the BLM draft. The Mule Deer begin to stream through this area around early 

May; depending upon snowpack. The Mule Deer will graze across these ranges until the snow melts 

sufficiently to allow them to access to the higher elevations where many will migrate to their summer 

areas. By late May we see the does up in our aspen and pine forests where they will calve/fawn. After 

calving these Mule Deer range from the wooded areas of our ranch to the National Forest throughout the 

summer. During the Summer the Mule Deer come out in the mornings and evenings to graze on the open 

rolling hills below the woods. In the Fall there will be a constant stream of deer migrating through the 

open areas during the morning and evening. The Hay Draw/Hay Gulch area, just east of Highway 191, is 

of special importance due to the combination of trees, forage, and water. The Spring, Summer, and Fall 

utilization of the Rim to Green River by Mule Deer is a very good sign of a vital healthy habitat that 

should not be leased and disrupted.

Response: The big game habitat maps have been updated to include the most recent data from WGFD. 

The areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing have been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: 11. Appendix 5. There do not appear to be any best management practices or mitigations that 

specifically address production phase impacts. Sawyer et al. (2006) suggest that reducing disturbance to 

wintering mule deer may require restrictions or approaches that limit the level of human activity during 

both production and development phases of the wells. They further suggest that limiting public access and 

developing road management strategies may also be a necessary part of mitigation plans. The final RMP 

should better describe how production and development phase impacts will be minimized through 

mitigation measures or required best management practices.

Response: Appendix 5 contains many BMPs that could be implemented in the production phase. For 

example, directional drilling implemented at the development phase would continue to have benefits 

throughout the productive life of the field. These BMPs are not organized by the stage of field develop, 

but rather by the resources they would serve to protect. Furthermore, BMPs continue to be developed as 

technology advances.

Comment: The BLM indicates on page 4-185 that the Big Piney mule deer herd in the vicinity of the Big 

Piney/LaBarge CAP has likely moved away from its traditional winter range, but admits that it has no 

studies to support that assumption. Rather than engage in speculation, the BLM should consult with the 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department to see if the population has been impacted. If mule deer are not still 

utilizing the area, the BLM should waive seasonal stipulations in the area and allow year-round 

operations.

Response: WGFD has re-delineated the season use areas of all of the big game species, and there are still 

large areas of crucial winter range on the EOG leases. 

Comment: Research also has shown that timing limitations may not be achieving their desired results.7 

Where well densities range from 4-16 pads per section (as in the Pinedale planning area), the number of 

A27-594 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

producing well pads and associated human activity may negate the effectiveness of timing restrictions on 

drilling activities as a means of mitigation (Sawyer et al. 2006). Sawyer et al. (2006) recommend that 

mitigation measures seeking to minimize disturbance to mule deer on winter range consider all human 

activity across the entire project area and not be restricted to the development of wells or to crucial winter 

ranges. However, the BLM has failed to take this important information into account in the Pinedale RMP 

DEIS. Instead, the Preferred Alternative focuses on timing limitations in arturition areas and crucial 

winter range as primary mitigation measures for big game.

Response: The impact analysis reveals that population impacts may occur.

Comment: Examples of species specific information on fragmentation and impacts from roads and oil 

and gas development from field biologists and the scientific literature that should be considered in this 

RMP include the following. 

Mule Deer Impacts: Multiple studies have shown that the area of indirect impacts from roads or oil and 

gas infrastructure for mule deer is substantially larger than that of direct impacts on mule deer (Rost and 

Bailey 1979, Freddy et al 1986, Lutz 2003 and Sawyer 2006). Lutz et al. (2003) states that mule deer can 

be pressured into using less-preferred or lower-quality habitat, and that this could negatively affect an 

individual’s energy balance “and ultimately decrease population productivity especially on winter range.”

Response: This issue was covered in the impacts analysis.

Comment: This is a continuation of Comment 2592. Freddy et al. (1986) found that mule deer are shown 

to alert, exhibiting a stress response to snowmobiles at a distance of 1542 feet (470 meters) and are less 

likely to use the habitat for normal life functions. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (2007) used this 

figure to calculate a 170 acre area of reduced habitat effectiveness around each well pad. An ongoing 

multi year field study by Sawyer et al. (2006) of VHF and GPS-collared mule deer on the Pinedale 

Anticline found that deer utilized habitat progressively farther from roads and well pads over three years 

of increasing gas development and showed no evidence of acclimating to energy-related infrastructure 

and activities. Deer were found to move to previously low use areas (from preferred to less preferred 

habitat) that the authors suggest may have implications on survival and reproduction. These findings also 

suggest that the commonly used mitigation measures of prohibiting oil and gas activities in the winter 

months are not effective. The progressively greater average displacement of deer from well pads was 

found to average 1.6 miles (2.7km) the first year, 1.9 miles (3. lkm) the second year and 2.2 miles (3.7km) 

in the third year. Sawyer et al. (2006) provide excellent guidelines for management planning for oil and 

gas development: “In deep-gas fields like the PAPA, where well densities range from, 4 to 16 pads per 

section (2.58 km2), the number of producing well pads and associated human activity may negate the 

potential effectiveness of timing restrictions on drilling activities as a means of reducing disturbance to 

wintering deer. Mitigation measures designed to minimize disturbance to wintering mule deer in natural 

gas fields should consider all human activity across the entire project area and not be restricted to the 

development of wells or to crucial winter ranges. Reducing disturbance to wintering mule deer may 

require restrictions or approaches that limit the level of human activity during both production and 

development phases of the wells. Directional-drilling technology offers promising new methods for 

reducing surface disturbance and human activity. Limiting public access and developing road 

management strategies may also be a necessary part of mitigation plans.” (emphasis added, Sawyer et al. 

2006). 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department classifies the impact of oil land gas development on mule deer 

as “moderate” for 1 well pad per square mile (640 acres), “high impact” for 2-4 well pads per square mile 

and “extreme” for greater than 4 well pads per square mile (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

2007a). The agency recommends that “well field developments not exceed 1 pad location per square mile 

Pinedale RMP A27-595 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

within mule deer crucial winter ranges because it is unlikely habitat effectiveness can be maintained at 

higher densities (based on reviews of Sawyer et al. 2005, 2006).” At the “extreme” impact level of greater 

than 4 wells per square mile the agency states that “The function and effectiveness of crucial winter 

habitat will be severely compromised. Long-term consequences are continued fragmentation and 

disintegration of the winter range complex, leading to decreased survival, productivity and ultimately, 

loss of carrying capacity for the herd.” Notably all well pad densities projected for oil and gas fields in the 

Draft RMP (p. A10-1) exceed even the “moderate” impact level of 1 well pad per square mile.

Response: The impact analysis has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: Pg 4-185, first paragraph, 60 acre spacing does not exist. This paragraph states “However, 

there is no scientific information that supports that the mule deer herd would maintain its occupancy in 

these areas if oil and gas activity increased over time.” In the alternative, there is not scientific 

information that supports the contention that mule deer will not maintain occupancy in areas developed 

for oil and gas extraction; in fact mule deer are found in many producing oil and gas fields in Wyoming. 

Many of the impacts attributed to “All Alternatives” are too broadly written and are not accurate 

reflections of what can be anticipated by the specific alternatives. It must be recognized that the impacts 

described in Sawyer et al. 2006 are those of the intense development that has occurred in the PAPA and 

that the mule deer population appears to have stabilized; the response of mule deer to less intensively or 

minimally developed oil and gas fields has not recently been studied.

Response: The results of the Sawyer et al. (2006) study does not indicate that the Sublette mule deer herd 

is stabilized, nor does this study make any assumptions of the population effects of the herd unit. This 

study was meant to determine the effects on the subset of the herd unit that winter on the Mesa. The 

results have indicated that the mule deer have not habituated to the development and have experienced 

declines in population.

Comment: PAGE: 3-116, SECTION: TABLE 3-32, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Insert assessment of 

habitat capability to sustain 2005 WGFD population objectives. EXPLANATION: The WGFD 2005 

population objectives also need to be assessed to determine whether the habitat can support the projected 

numbers. The largest gaps appear to be mule deer on the Wyoming Range, where 2005 WGFD objectives 

would double the population, and Moose in Sublette County. If the differences are attributed to herd 

management area boundary differences then the table should have a footnote explaining that.

Response: This information is taken directly from the WGFD JRC reports.

Elk 

Comment: Beginning on page 4-184 the DEIS provides some generic discussion of potential impacts and 

uses two outdated references on physiological stress which to me, as a professional working in this area, 

is overstating the obvious. When confronted with anthropogenic stimuli, big game animals generally 

respond by fleeing which depletes essential energy reserves (Parker et al. 1984, Freddy et al. 1986 and 

Hobbs 1989) and continued negative stimuli may result in shifts in habitat use patterns; this is generally 

accepted knowledge. Time to move on and answer the question, “so what does this mean to big game 

populations?” There are some site-specific data (Sawyer et al 2005, 2006 and Berger et al. 2006) that 

would allow calculation of habitat losses and population impacts associated with energy development. 

Phillips and Alldredge (2000) and Shively et al. (2005) demonstrated a 30% reduction in elk calf 

recruitment as a result of an activity as benign as simulated recreational hiking imposed during the 

calving season. There will be population impacts to big game animals resulting from implementation of 

any alternative discussed in the RMP/DEIS, and the RMP/DEIS fails to provide, or even attempt to 

provide, any meaningful analysis of these impacts.

A27-596 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Response: BLM acknowledges in the impacts analysis that there are impacts to the animals from these 

stresses, but BLM cannot determine at this time what the population impacts will be.

Comment: Over 1,000 Elk winter on the Franz and Black Butte Wyoming Game and Fish Feedgrounds. 

In the Springtime these Elk utilize the private ranch lands of the Rim and Upper Green River for early 

season forage and calving. There is minimal human presence and the Elk can go over these lands 

undisturbed. In the latter part of May the Elk start calving on our spring riven benchlands and in the 

nearby woods. This occurs mostly on the private ranch lands due to availability of early season feed. 

There is too much snow up in the National Forest lands to the north. The Elk can be seen out in the open 

areas during the mornings and the evenings. During the daytime the elk are seen down in the draws where 

the springs run and up in the wooded areas. Once the calves are born the cows and calves head to the 

wooded areas of our ranch as well as the adjacent Bridger Teton National Forest. Part of the herd stays in 

the area of Hay Draw/Hay Gulch to the east of Highway 191 during the entire slimmer. In the Fall the elk 

return to the private ranch lands as the snow pushes them to areas where feed is abundant. The private 

ranch lands provide an exceptional transitional range for the Elk in the area. As the accompanying 

wetland area map shows there is abundant water in the form of springs and creeks. For these 

reasons(water, feed, minimal human presence) the Rim and Upper Green River Valley should not be 

leased.

Response: The status of the Upper Green area has been changed to Unavailable for Leasing in the final 

EIS.

Comment: Elk: There are over 1,000 head of Ellc wintering on the Franz and Black Butte Feed grounds. 

Many of them calve-out in the spring on the protected benches and woods on the Quarter Circle Five 

Ranch, which lies in the middle of the 2 feed grounds. They are left undisturbed by humans and calve out 

peacefully. After the calves are born they head for the timber on the adjoining National Forest or stay in 

the dark timber in the Hay Draw or Hay Gulch pastures on the QC5. In the fall the Elk return to graze on 

private ranch lands until it snows over and move to the feed grounds. Once again, please take a look at 

map 3-20 Big Game Parturition Areas of the EIS and compare it to the enclosed Wyoming’s Game and 

Fish map entitled “Elk Seasonal Range and Parturition” as of 5/7/07. In this case, the BLM fails to even 

recognize this established elk (calving) parturition area that has been in existence as long as we’ve owned 

the ranch. It is a prime calving ground because of natural cover, upland water sources and minimal human 

and livestock disturbance.

Response: These changes were identified and have been updated for the final EIS. Any future changes 

will also be incorporated into the record of decision.

Comment: Thomas et al. (1988) asserted that hiding and thermal cover are critical components of elk 

winter range, and that patches of cover greater than 200m wide are more effective than smaller blocks. 

With this in mind, extensive security areas comprised of forested habitat must be retained on winter 

ranges.

Response: BLM has very little forest habitat within its jurisdiction. Due to snow depth, these areas tend 

not to provide winter range. However, efforts to maintain or enhance these areas for better elk forage are 

currently underway. 

Comment: Furthermore, Thomas et al. (1988) asserted that winter logging on elk winter range is 

disruptive to elk, and thus a moratorium should be placed on winter logging on winter ranges under this 

alternative. In general, natural processes should prevail on winter ranges, and natural disturbances should 

be allowed to proceed unhindered by management. Limited extractive activities may be allowed in these 

areas if they are consistent with maximizing the habitat capabilities of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.

Pinedale RMP A27-597 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Response: Winter logging generally has not been approved on BLM lands, not only for the reasons 

mentioned, but also due to access difficulties. These habitats receive a large snow load and are not 

accessible in the winter.

Comment: Elk are grazers, and their summer range requirements center around forest opening and edge 

habitats (Marcot et al. 1994). Compton (1974) found that elk in the Sierra Madre concentrated their 

summer use in subalpine parks, and found heavy autumn use in aspen cover types. Strickland (1975) 

noted that subalpine and mid-elevation parks formed the primary summer range of elk. Several studies 

have shown that closed-canopy forests are required by elk for thermal cover during summer (Patterson 

1996, Millspaugh et al. 1998, Cooper and Millspaugh 1999). Hiding cover may be an important or even 

limiting factor in predominantly open habitats; Patterson (1996) found that in a study area where 

woodlands made up only 8% of the landscape cover, wooded habitat was the most important variable 

determining elk distribution. According to this study, the average size of woodland patches used by elk 

was 9 times greater than average patch size, and elk preferred thermal cover of trees during summer. For 

this reason, the BLM should restrict the logging or other reduction of wooded patches in the areas in the 

planning area that are elk habitat.

Response: The logging that is occurring in elk habitat is to protect and enhance native elk ranges and 

increase forage, particularly in aspen stands experiencing conifer encroachment.

Comment: On winter ranges, elk are highly susceptible to disturbance. They are so sensitive to human 

disturbance that even cross-country skiers can cause significant stress to wintering animals (Cassirer et al. 

1992). Disturbance during this time of year can be particularly costly, since the metabolic costs of 

locomotion are up to five times as great when snows are deep (Parker et al. 1984). The regular vehicle 

traffic associated with oil and gas fields constitutes a significantly higher threshold of disturbance, and 

thus would cause even greater stress to the animals. Thus, all human activities should be prohibited on elk 

winter ranges between November 15 and April 30.

Response: This is the current standard for any surface-disturbing activities in elk winter ranges.

Comment: Wildlife and fish habitat management goals include contradictory objectives. While earlier 

discussion involved the Alternative 3’s desire to not have ACEC designation for elk areas due to the 

proximity of various feedgrounds, this goal includes an objective to get elk off of feedgrounds and back 

on native range. Clearly this needs revisiting. If there are special management areas or ACEC’s that have 

native big game winter range that needs protection the BLM should be proactive and consider protecting 

some of these areas.

Response: Please see pages 3-135 through 3-138. BLM is proposing a scenario where elk feedgrounds 

are no longer managed on BLM lands in order to protect elk seasonal habitats by encouraging the animals 

to forage in their native ranges. Right now the habitat surrounding the feedgrounds is severely altered due 

to foraging pressure from the large numbers of elk using the feedgrounds and due to the problems 

associated with brucellosis. BLM is proposing to protect native elk winter ranges in the Beaver Creek 

ACEC. 

Comment: Page 2-31 “The Riley Ridge Project Monitoring Program would be continued. Further 

monitoring would include gathering of geological data in the Deadline Ridge-Graphite Hollow crucial elk 

winter range to aid in preparation of the proposed activity plan. Monitoring would be coordinated with 

other resource monitoring programs such as wildlife, surface and ground water quality, grazing, and 

cultural resources, as appropriate.” Comment - Before continuing the Riley Ridge Project Monitoring 

Program, it is necessary to explain the tangible benefits that have been achieved. BLM has not provided 

any information as to the results of the current monitoring program; nor has it been explained why it 

A27-598 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

should be retained. Without this information, it is impossible to justify its retention. BLM needs to 

provide information supporting the need for the program, including the findings and benefits, in the Final 

EIS or it should be eliminated.

Response: The monitoring program that was required in the Riley Ridge project ROD never happened, 

which is why there has been no information reported. The monitoring program is presented here as a part 

of Alternative 1, the continuation of existing management, because it is part of the 1988 RMP ROD. 

Comment: Page 4-185 “Elk have until now been able to find suitable undisturbed habitats away from 

human activity; however, continued development could lead to abandonment of historic ranges (in the last 

native winter foraging area on the Wyoming Range) (Johnson 1985).” Comment - The Johnson 1985 

citation appears to be an opinion found in a set of notes somewhere. It is not part of an official agency 

report or scientific publication. Johnson’s opinion on this subject is more professionally and scientifically 

represented in: Johnson, B.K., L.D. Hayden-Wing, and D.C. Lockman, 1990, Response of elk to 

development of Exxon’s Riley Ridge Gas Field in western Wyoming. pp. 42-55 in R.L. Callas, D.B. 

Koch, and E.R. Loft, eds., Proceedings of the 1990 western states and provinces elk workshop. California 

Department of Fish and Game, Eureka. 

Page 4-186 “A study conducted by Hayden-Wing Associates (1990) found a similar response in the 

Graphite Hollow/Rock Creek Winter Range where elk moved 0.5 to 2.4 miles away from a well site.” 

Comment - Although this is a true statement, it is an incomplete and inaccurate portrayal of elk response 

to drilling and production in that it only states what elk did during the drilling period. A more accurate 

statement, set forth in the abstract of this study and described elsewhere in the document, would be that: 

“On both winter and calving ranges, elk moved out of or away from areas where construction activities 

were occurring and returned when these intensive activities ceased.” Furthermore, it is stated on page 4-

29 of the DEIS that: “No significant effect of Exxon’s well field activities on total numbers of elk using 

the GH/RC winter range, or elk harvest in the Big Piney Herd was found.” Such selective quoting of 

literature misrepresents the findings of the study and appears intent on misleading the reader. The 

research contained in this report (Hayden-Wing Associates. 1990) has been published and can be found in 

the following reference: Johnson, B.K., L.D. Hayden-Wing, and D.C. Lockman, 1990 Response of elk to 

development of Exxon’s Riley Ridge Gas Field in western Wyoming. pp. 42-55 in R.L. Callas, D.B. 

Koch, and E.R. Loft, eds., Proceedings of the 1990 western states and provinces elk workshop. California 

Department of Fish and Game, Eureka. 

Page 4-210 “Geophysical actions during wildlife-sensitive time periods would likely disturb wildlife, 

causing reduced fitness, temporary habitat abandonment, or nest abandonment.” Comment - The low 

impact, transient nature of seismic operations requires that seismic operations not be lumped together 

with other activities that are longer in term and cause surface impacts. It must be recognized that the data 

derived from geophysical operations significantly reduces environmental impacts from drilling activities 

due to less overall drilling and associated activities. Therefore, we recommend the statement referenced 

above be deleted and replaced with the following: “Geophysical operations by their very nature are 

transient and result in near zero impacts to the environment, and therefore are not subject to wildlifesensitive time periods”.

Response: There have been geophysical operations over a number of years including using helicopters, 

dropping off groups of people on the ground to string geophones for thousands of source and receiver 

points, free standing drill rigs drilling holes for underground explosives, thumper trucks driving across 

large landscapes crushing the vegetation and leaving trails in otherwise undisturbed vegetation. The 

magnitude of these actions does not constitute near zero impacts. Therefore, BLM disagrees with the 

requested text changes. To address the misleading part of the comment; the text on page 4-185 clearly 

states all of the points that the commenter stated were missing.

Pinedale RMP A27-599 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Comment: Item: Page 4-186 – First complete sentence states that: “A study conducted by Hayden-Wing 

Associates (1990) found a similar response in the Graphite Hollow/Rock Creek Winter Range where elk 

moved 0.5 to 2.4 miles away from a well site.” Comment - Although this is a true statement, it is an 

incomplete portrayal of elk response to drilling and production in that it only states what elk did during 

the drilling period. A more accurate statement, set forth in the abstract of this study and described 

elsewhere in the document, would be that: “On both winter and calving ranges elk moved out of or away 

from areas where construction activities were occurring and returned when these intensive activities 

ceased.” Furthermore, it is stated on page 29 of this report that: “No significant effect of Exxon’s well 

field activities on total numbers of elk using the GH/RC winter range, or elk harvest in the Big Piney 

Herd was found.” The research contained in this report (Hayden-Wing Associates. 1990) has been 

published and can be found in the following reference: Johnson, B.K., L.D. Hayden-Wing, and D.C. 

Lockman. 1990. Response of elk to development of Exxon’s Riley Ridge Gas Field in western Wyoming. 

pp. 42-55 in R.L. Callas, D.B. Koch, and E.R. Loft, eds., Proceedings of the 1990 western states and 

provinces elk workshop. California Department of Fish and Game. Eureka.

Response: The text on page 4-185 clearly states all of the points that the commenter stated were missing.

Comment: The draft RMP does not adequately address the issue of elk feedgrounds that are conducted 

by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) on BLM jurisdiction. This treatment of a 

significant action, artificial feeding of elk, is not sufficient to meet the legal standards and direction that 

the BLM must adhere to. A simple MOU with the WGFD is not sufficient and a 1981 EA for elk 

feedgrounds failed to analyze disease impacts and did not adequately analyze a reasonable range of 

alternatives to feedgrounds. The BLM must fully comply with all laws including but not limited to the 

Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before authorizing elk feedgrounds. 

Response: We are analyzing the elimination of the feedgrounds in one alternative, and specific on-theground management of the feedground is not an RMP decision. The RMP is an allocation document that 

determines whether the feedgrounds are going to continue.

Comment: As stated above, there is only cursory mention of elk feedgrounds in the RMP. In Alternative 

1, the “No Action” alternative which is merely the perpetuation of the existing 1988 Pinedale RMP, the 

Draft RMP intends to maintain “continued use of the areas as elk feedgrounds.” (2-39) However, as 

pointed out above, the BLM has never conducted an adequate analysis of the disease impacts resulting 

from feedgrounds, nor have they conducted an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to elk 

feedgrounds. Therefore, perpetuating feedgrounds under this scenario, Alt 1, is not in accordance with the 

BLM’s legal directives. 

Alternative 2 in the RMP contains the provision that, “Elk feedgrounds would be eliminated on public 

lands.” (2-71), yet does not offer an adequate analysis of the impacts. This Alternative 2 also contains 

some “poison pills” which renders it unacceptable to the public and also likely unable to be fully and 

legally implemented by the BLM. Some components in Alternative 2 that render it unacceptable are 

allowing nearly 1.2 million acres to be available for mineral entry, (2-56); minimizing protections for 

sage grouse, (2-71, 72); minimizing protections for big game winter range and birthing areas, (2-72); and 

minimizing protections for areas nominated for ACEC and other Special Management Areas (SMA’s), (2-

73). While it is interesting that the BLM lists in simplistic terms a change from status quo (i.e., 

feedgrounds would be “eliminated”), the BLM describes such a change in such negative terms and only in 

an alternative that is impossible to implement in its entirety. While ending the elk feedground paradigm 

has many benefits, the BLM- by attaching so many unacceptable components within Alt 2- is apparently 

weighing down Alt 2 to ensure that nothing of the kind occurs. 

A27-600 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

However, Alternative 3 contains components which may enable the BLM to move forward towards 

balanced uses on lands within its jurisdiction. Alternative 3 designates some new SMA’s (2-106, 107), 

offers some protections against leasing and development of oil and gas, and suggests some improvement 

in sage grouse and big game protections. However, Alternative 3, while opening the door to some 

measures of improvement over the 1988 RMP, does not go far enough to balancing uses in the Pinedale 

Resource Office area. We will collaborate with other groups to offer other specifics on improving 

Alternative 3 in comments submitted elsewhere. 

In these comments GYC recommends that the BLM not, “provide for the continued use of the areas as elk 

feedgrounds,” (2-100), but that they carefully and completely analyze disease and other impacts from 

feedgrounds and analyze a full range of alternatives which would at the very least, “reduce the 

dependence of elk on feedgrounds by improving habitat quality on native winter ranges,” (Ibid). The 

BLM also needs to adequately and completely analyze alternatives to maintaining elk feedgrounds, 

including alternatives which carefully phase out the feedgrounds while protecting private property and 

livestock owners and sustaining a vibrant big game hunting industry. 

Response: Chapter 4 contains the analysis of the impacts of the feedgrounds. This EIS provides the 

NEPA analysis of the feedgrounds. Analysis of the impacts of continuing or eliminating the feedgrounds 

has been increased in the final EIS.

Comment: In the BLM’s Preferred Alternative 4, they once again incorporate an elk feedground strategy 

to “ensure the continued viability of the elk feedgrounds.” (2-143) Yet this alternative also states that it 

intends to, “Maintain functioning big game habitats and migration corridors that allow free movement and 

use of habitats.” (Ibid) The above two statements appear to be contradictory. Elk feedgrounds are by their 

very nature not “functioning big game habitat” since they are artificial in intent and practice. Functioning 

big game habitat, particularly winter ranges, is habitat which offers the elk forage during times of reduced 

abundance and nourishment, and winter range also offers elk security and escape cover and thermal relief 

to deal with predators and severe cold. Winter range habitat also allows the elk to disperse in densities 

that do not exacerbate disease transmissions. Elk feedgrounds do not allow “free movement” of elk since, 

again, by intent and practice they inhibit the ability of elk to freely range as in presettlement times or as in 

virtually all other jurisdictions in North America today. And, finally, elk feedgrounds most definitely act 

as impediments to elk migration corridors to known ancestral winter ranges which are currently within the 

BLM’s jurisdiction in Sublette, Lincoln, and Sweetwater counties. The BLM needs to inform itself and 

the public on the characteristics of elk feedgrounds, the impacts, and reasonable alternatives. An elk 

feedground EIS would be an appropriate opportunity

Response: BLM recognizes that the elk feedgrounds are not an ideal situation. The RMP team considered 

at length whether or not it would be possible to eliminate the feedgrounds on public lands, and how to 

include such an action in the draft EIS. Alternative 2 considers eliminating the feedgrounds. BLM cannot 

bring about the end of the feedground system, because only 6 of the 22 feedgrounds are on BLMadministered public lands. Additional discussion of the impacts of both maintaining and eliminating the 

elk feedgrounds has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: Elk feedgrounds have been directly linked with brucellosis outbreaks in Wyoming cattle. As a 

result of feedground elk infecting cattle with brucellosis in Sublette County in late 2003, Wyoming’s 

Governor Freudenthal convened a Brucellosis Coordination Team (BCT) in 2004. The BCT made public 

a report in January 2005 that recommended constructing large capture and testing facilities at some elk 

feedgrounds in Sublette County, Wyoming, and capturing, testing, and sending to slaughter adult female 

elk that were seropositive for exposure to Brucella abortus. The WGFD has operated a capture, test, and 

shipping facility on USFS lands at one elk feedground in Sublette County, and has stated that it intends to 

place similar facilities for elk at other feedgrounds in the area, including possibly elk feedgrounds on 

Pinedale RMP A27-601 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

BLM jurisdiction. The BLM may not authorize such facilities without conducting an adequate EIS in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws. 

Response: Analysis of the impacts of continuing or eliminating the feedgrounds has been increased in the 

final EIS. 

Comment: While this DEIS does not meet the standards of a hard look required by the NEPA for 

analysis of significant federal actions such as the permitting and operations of elk feedgrounds, there are 

some cursory mentions of elk feedgrounds in the text of the DEIS. “(Impacts under Alternative 1): 

Maintaining six elk feedgrounds on (BLM) public lands in the planning area would continue the 

separation of elk and livestock on winter feed lines and limit the destruction of private hay by elk, to the 

extent that success is currently being achieved. Keeping elk and cattle separated would help to prevent the 

spread of brucellosis between the species, although concentrating elk on the feedgrounds serves to 

encourage spread of the disease among the elk.” (4-41) The DEIS does hint in the above that elk 

feedgrounds do not prevent elk cattle commingling. The BLM undoubtedly needs to conduct an analysis 

of alternatives to elk feedgrounds which would better accomplish prevention of commingling, such as 

fencing of private lands winter livestock feedlines. The BLM needs to analyze if this method is more 

effective and more cost efficient at preventing commingling than maintaining elk feedgrounds. 

“(Impacts under Alternative 2): Elimination of elk feedgrounds located on BLM-administered public 

lands (six elk feedgrounds) would result in more elk wintering out on sagebrush ridges and other native 

winter ranges. Because of the increase of livestock grazing AUM’s under this alternative, there would be 

less forage available in elk crucial winter habitats. Winter survival and reproductive rates among elk 

could be reduced, potentially resulting in reductions in elk populations. It is likely that many elk would 

resort to feeding on private haystacks and to commingling with livestock on feed lines. The risk of 

brucellosis transmission between the species would thereby be in- creased.” (4-42) The BLM needs to 

analyze the amounts of residual forage being available to wintering big game. As with the BLM summer 

grazing allotments near Bench Corral feedground, the BLM needs to place production transects on all 

livestock grazing allotments on big game winter ranges to be read annually at the end of the grazing 

season to calculate residual forage available to wintering big game. And the BLM also needs to assess 

what impacts oil and gas development has on wintering big game, including influences such as direct 

habitat loss from wellpads and other facilities, and diminished use of winter ranges due to avoidance by 

big game of industrial facilities. 

The preceding quote from the DEIS, 4-42, is likely incorrect saying that free ranging elk would incur 

diminished reproductive rates. Quite the opposite is likely to occur: elk would experience increased 

reproduction when elk feedgrounds are phased out since brucellosis among elk suppresses birth rates and 

free-ranging elk are virtually free of brucellosis (see below and DEIS 4-200). This information, combined 

with analyses of snow pack distribution and snow characteristics (such as depth and crusting) will better 

inform the BLM on impacts and alternatives to elk feedgrounds. “In areas adjacent to elk feedgrounds, the 

elimination of elk feedgrounds (under Alternative 2) would reduce hunting opportunities and user 

benefits.” 4-104 The BLM does not cite any data on which to base the impacts of phasing out elk 

feedgrounds on hunting opportunities and other unspecified “user benefits”. In an adequate analysis, the 

BLM must study other cases where elk feedgrounds have been phased out and bountiful elk hunting 

opportunities persist. Some of these cases are offered in a report, Brucellosis Solution for Elk and Cattle 

in Wyoming at http://greateryellowstone.org/pdf/brucellosis-solution.pdf. See more discussion about the 

opportunities for phasing out elk feedgrounds, past and present, in the Pinedale Field Office area below. 

Response: BLM recognizes that the elk feedgrounds are not an ideal situation. The RMP team considered 

at length whether or not it would be possible to eliminate the feedgrounds on public lands, and how to 

include such an action in the draft EIS. Alternative 2 considers eliminating the feedgrounds. BLM cannot 

A27-602 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

bring about the end of the feedground system, because only 6 of the 22 feedgrounds are on BLMadministered public lands. Additional discussion of the impacts of both maintaining and eliminating the 

elk feedgrounds has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: “(Under Alternative 2) (t)here would be no management emphasis for maintaining big game 

crucial winter habitat or protecting parturition ranges. This could cause substantial degradation and force 

big game to relocate to other habitat areas. Elk feedgrounds would be eliminated on public lands and 

would be available for oil and gas leasing. This would likely increase pressure on the feedgrounds on 

State lands, increase pressure on private lands (haystacks), increase pressure on the native winter range on 

the Wyoming Range, and increase elk-human interactions (e.g., vehicle collisions) and could lead to a 

die-off the first year from starvation. By eliminating the feedgrounds, the elk would also not herd together 

throughout the winter, potentially decreasing the brucellosis transmission rates.” (4-200) Contrary to what 

is indicated in the above section excerpted from the DEIS, the BLM may not abandon its responsibilities 

under NEPA which guides important national policies for environmental protection, including, in this 

instance, protection of big game winter range and birthing areas. 

Response: Analysis of the impacts of continuing or eliminating the feedgrounds has been increased in the 

final EIS.

Comment: It seems disingenuous for BLM to include a discussion (DEIS 4-200 above), however brief, 

about “eliminating” elk feedgrounds in a section of the DEIS which is attached to an attempt to offer 

worst case scenarios resulting from management that is contrary to their legal obligations. The BLM 

cannot predicate a realistic cause and effects disclosure of phasing out elk feedgrounds on an outcome of 

its own failure to prevent degradation of native big game winter ranges. A more realistic- and legalanalysis of impacts of phasing out elk feedgrounds would include a well researched, comprehensive, hard 

look at the environmental consequences of the BLM’s actions. 

There is widespread agreement among wildlife professionals that elk feedgrounds foster ideal conditions 

for massive disease infections among the elk. The BLM must consider, prior to allowing elk feedgrounds 

to continue on its jurisdiction, the serious implications of elk feeding on the maintenance of existing 

diseases such as brucellosis, and diseases not yet in the Upper Green River Basin such as bovine TB and 

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). The BLM must also consider the effects of the brucellosis vaccination 

program on elk and the environment, and analyze a range of alternatives to vaccinations. 

The BLM appears to be allowing elk feeding by the WGFD without the necessary paperwork. The BLM 

apparently allows the WGFD to feed elk on BLM lands without valid permits, and without the analysis 

that would require NEPA analysis. The BLM cannot ignore its obligations under NEPA by merely 

ignoring its own permitting requirements and regulations. Until the BLM completes a lawful analysis for 

elk feedgrounds, there can be no valid elk feeding operations conducted on BLM jurisdiction. The same 

applies to any elk capture, testing, and shipping to slaughter facilities- and associated fences- and 

operations considered to be placed and operated on BLM lands. Elk feedgrounds and, possibly, capture 

and testing facilities are not, and may not be, isolated circumstances. Such operations are significant 

under NEPA; indeed the conditions needed to implement the test and capture process would likely 

exacerbate the crowding of elk which are the very conditions that cause elk to infect other elk with 

diseases. And, still, many of the effects of capture and testing of elk are highly uncertain, and a NEPA 

analysis is required. It is only through adequate analyses and full inclusion of the public in the process 

that the BLM can make informed decisions and the public, too, can offer informed input. 

Response: Analysis of the impacts of continuing or eliminating the feedgrounds has been increased in the 

final EIS.

Pinedale RMP A27-603 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Comment: Some of the necessary elements of an analysis of the impacts of elk feedgrounds- and capture 

and testing facilities- on BLM lands, are a full range of reasonable alternatives. Included in those 

alternatives must be carefully constructed and analyzed feedground phaseout projects. We incorporate 

into these comments the entire report alluded to above, Brucellosis Solution for elk and cattle in 

Wyoming, available on the GYC website at: http://greateryellowstone.org/pdf/brucellosis-solution.pdf 

We attach this report in its entirety to these comments. In the report there are brief descriptions that can 

serve as templates for feedground phase out projects in the Upper Green River Basin. The BLM may be 

wise to collaborate with the USFS because some elk feedgrounds in this area are on USFS jurisdiction. 

Also included in this report are brief descriptions of elk feedgrounds that have been successfully phased 

out in the past. The BLM can use these case studies to inform their analyses, including the economics 

associated with significant cost savings by phasing out artificial feeding and vaccination of elk. One of 

the most important components of feedground phaseout projects will likely be the prevention of 

commingling between elk and livestock on livestock winter feedlines. The BLM, WGFD, USFS and other 

stakeholders can greatly help move such efforts forward by assisting in constructing stackyards for hay, 

and elk proof fencing where needed to prevent commingling, and also assisting the WGFD in 

implementing Hunter Management Areas in order to harvest elk. There are indeed many available tools to 

successfully phase out elk feedgrounds; all these need to be included in a comprehensive analysis. 

Response: BLM recognizes that the elk feedgrounds are not an idea situation. The RMP team considered 

at length whether or not it would be possible to eliminate the feedgrounds on public lands, and how to 

include such an action in the draft EIS. Alternative 2 considers eliminating the feedgrounds. BLM cannot 

bring about the end of the feedground system, because only 6 of the 22 feedgrounds are on BLMadministered public lands. Additional discussion of the impacts of both maintaining and eliminating the 

elk feedgrounds has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: In order for the BLM to move forward in its new Resource Management Plan, and to facilitate 

management of healthy elk and healthy habitat, it must conduct appropriate analyses on elk feedgrounds 

and associated facilities, vaccination of elk, and capture, testing, and shipping to slaughter facilities for 

elk. 

Response: BLM does not conduct vaccination, capture, testing, or shipping of elk and is not qualified to 

conduct this analysis.

Comment: PAGE: 2-20 SECTION: 2.4.4 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [Large Block NSO 

Areas would be managed for protection of wildlife habitats through offering oil and gas leases with NSO 

stipulations.](strikeout) EXPLANATION: The large block NSO areas do not conform to criteria for NSO, 

e.g. steep slopes, erosive soils, or other resource values that make surface use unsuitable. Instead, NSO is 

being used as a de facto withdrawal. Esdras K. Hartley 88 IBLA 437, 441 (1981) (although as a general 

rule a stipulation should not be so restrictive as to preclude any right of enjoyment and a lease should not 

be issued under such circumstances). BLM precedent does not support NSO on this scale, especially since 

the areas are not for T&E species but rather to protect already for very plentiful big game. When BLM 

issues leases in elk habitat with surface use elsewhere, the rationale for NSO for similar elk habitat here 

fails.

Response: The Pinedale RMP planning area contains relatively little elk habitat. Rather, the NSO areas 

are intended to protect habitats for mule deer, pronghorn, and greater sage-grouse. The NSO areas were 

presented as a way to protect some wildlife habitats while extensive developments in the Jonah and 

Anticline areas continue and while allowing for some amount of oil and gas leasing. The areas 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing and available with NSO stipulations have been revised in the final EIS.

A27-604 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: PAGE:2-143 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:Revise: In and adjacent to elk 

feedgrounds, maintain and improve habitat quality [and ensure the continued viability of the elk 

feedgrounds.](strikeout) EXPLANATION:The elk feedgrounds are per se not sustainable or viable over 

the long term. There is a real need to improve habitat but feed grounds are generally not allowed on 

federal lands. This exception needs to remain that, an exception. BLM and Forest Service are currently 

being sued for poor management of elk feeding grounds, including those in the Pinedale planning area. 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Bosworth, 06 CV 37J. The plaintiffs contend that BLM has failed to do 

NEPA analysis or issue permits and that the MOU by itself is insufficient to authorize the feedgrounds. 

Regardless of the case’s outcome, the lawsuit documents some of the environmental harms arising from 

the feedgrounds and the RMP needs to address them. 

Response: The goal to ensure the continued viability of the feedgrounds is intended to keep the areas 

available for use as feedgrounds as long as BLM determines that this use is appropriate and to not 

authorize other uses that would conflict with the areas’ use as feedgrounds. Additional discussion of the 

impacts of both retaining and eliminating the feedgrounds has been added to Chapter 4 of the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE:2-143 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:Reevaluate merit of elk feedgrounds. 

EXPLANATION:As the above referenced litigation alleges, BLM never permitted and never did the 

required NEPA analysis for the elk feedgrounds. Aside from the issue of brucellosis, the elk feedgrounds 

have significant adverse environmental impacts that are entirely ignored in the FEIS. These areas fail to 

meet Wyoming Healthy Rangeland Standards and BLM cannot lawfully continue them without 

addressing the causal effect between elk and failure to meet Standards. The history of Bench Corral is 

illustrative. The original purpose of the feed grounds was to mitigate elk depredation during winter 

months and to maintain quality rangelands. The elk feedground was moved to federal land, but elk 

continue to trespass, attract wolves that cause depredation of livestock on adjacent fee lands. Now there is 

documented damage to summer range due to elk numbers. The RMP ignores the fact that most of the elk 

winter habitat is on fee lands and elk numbers remain quite high on fee ground. The FEIS fails to consider 

the merit of each feed ground and the continuing need for the feed grounds. The FEIS omits the 

significant adverse environmental effects.

Response: The draft EIS evaluates the merit of the feedgrounds through considering in the alternatives 

both retaining and eliminating them.

Comment: PAGE:2-146 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:Delete: [b. Surface occupancy would 

be prohibited on elk feedgrounds except authorized activities to maintain feedground facilities and 

manage wintering elk.](strikeout) EXPLANATION:For existing leases, which is the case for intensively 

developed areas, BLM cannot deny surface use. This actually amounts to a condition that would entitle 

lessees to seek a conservation suspension of the obligation to make lease and royalty payments since it 

denies surface use for 51⁄2 months out of each year. Unwarranted based on science. Elk numbers are at an 

all time high, and exceed capacity, hence the need for feedgrounds. Where feed grounds involve private 

land, it is an unlawful restriction on private land rights.

Response: As prominently stated on pages 1-1 and 1-9, this RMP will not and cannot dictate 

management of private surface and private minerals. The elk feedground NSO has been recommended by 

WGFD and is a stipulation in the mineral leases which is legally binding and does not constitute a taking, 

when the rest of the leasehold can be developed.

Comment: PAGE:2-146 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:[c. No unauthorized human presence 

would be permitted on elk feedgrounds from November 15 through April 30. Where the feedground 

location is split estate (private surface ownership and federal minerals), this restriction would be limited 

to BLM-permitted mineral activities.](strikeout) EXPLANATION:BLM cannot control surface use and it 

Pinedale RMP A27-605 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

is subject to a separate agreement to which BLM is not a party. Opinion of the Solicitor, Legal 

Responsibilities of BLM for Oil and Gas Leasing and Operations on Split Estate Lands (April 1988) 

(concluding that BLM ownership of mineral estate does not permit limits on privately-owned surface). 

BLM cannot limit surface access when the data do not support a determination of significantly adverse 

impacts.

Response: BLM has authority to manage how leases of BLM-administered minerals are developed. This 

management is conducted in cooperation with the surface landowner.

Comment: PAGE:2-146 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: d. In close coordination with the 

Sublette County Conservation District and Sublette County, BLM would work with the WGFD and 

affected parties to improve habitat quality in areas surrounding feedgrounds. EXPLANATION:Local 

governments are the entities with land use jurisdiction and any solution needs to include them. Otherwise, 

it is a top down status quo outcome with continuing resource damage.

Response: Local governments do not have management jurisdiction over BLM-administered public 

lands. As an affected party, local governments could be involved in habitat improvement activities.

Comment: PAGE: 2-147, RECOMMENDED CHANGE:e. [No unauthorized human presence would be 

permitted on elk feedgrounds from November 15 through April 30. Where the feedground location is split 

estate (private surface ownership and federal minerals), this restriction would not apply. be limited to 

BLM-permitted mineral activities.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION:Ownership of mineral estate does not 

convey right to limit use of the surface. If lessee has surface use agreement with landowner, BLM has no 

right to impose terms and conditions on that surface use agreement. Additionally, the human presence 

issue is not supported by sound scientific data. The largest stressor on wintering big game is predators but 

the RMP fails to recognize and support predator control. This restriction is thus arbitrary and capricious.

Response: BLM has authority to manage how leases of BLM-administered minerals are developed. This 

management is conducted in cooperation with the surface landowner.

Comment: PAGE:2-148, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [d. No unauthorized human presence would be 

permitted on elk feedgrounds from November 15 through April 30. Where the feedground location is split 

estate (private surface ownership and federal minerals), this restriction would not apply. be limited to 

BLM-permitted mineral activities.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: See Comment #171.

Response: BLM has authority to manage how leases of BLM-administered minerals are developed. This 

management is conducted in cooperation with the surface landowner.

Comment: PAGE: 3-118, SECTION: 3.17.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise Winter feedgrounds 

were incorporated into the planning area during the late 1940s and early 1950s to contain and provide 

supplemental food for elk that were damaging private haystacks during the winter. These feedgrounds 

reduced elk depredation of rancher’s haystacks in traditionally used areas. In recent years, however, 

wolves and other predators have dispersed elk onto private land, where they are again utilizing private 

land grazing in addition to the feedgorunds. The WGFD, through an MOU with the BLM, administers 10 

winter feedgrounds (Map 3-17).

Response: More discussion of elk feedgrounds has been added to Chapter 3 in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 4-97, SECTION: 4.9.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLAIN BASIS FOR ELK 

INCREASES The number of hunters will fluctuate with the size of the herds and other indirect factors, 

but because of less interest by younger generations, the number of hunters will decrease. 

A27-606 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

EXPLANATION: Assuming hunters are expected to decrease, BLM cannot continue to justify additional 

big game animals, when habitat capacity is already exceeded.

Response: BLM does not control herd objective numbers, this is regulated by WGFD.

Prairie Dog, Black-footed Ferret, Pygmy Rabbit, Beaver 

Comment: The BLM has not clearly defined what is meant by the management objective requiring 

activities in or near white-tailed prairie dogs to be avoided. See RMP DEIS, pg. 2-149. Additional 

information should be provided in the Final EIS and particularly information regarding the criterion BLM 

will utilize to determine whether activities should be avoided.

Response: Surface-disturbing activities that destroy prairie dogs, burrows, or parts of the prairie dog 

town will be avoided.

Comment: There is currently no effective method to control the spread of plague in prairie dog colonies. 

Because prairie dogs in the Pinedale planning area are already stressed by endemic or epidemic levels of 

sylvatic plague, stronger conservation measures are needed to prevent impacts from activities that can in 

fact be controlled.

Response: There is no evidence that the colonies within the planning area are suffering from epidemic 

levels of sylvatic plague; however, actions to conserve prairie dog towns can be found on page 2-149.

Comment: Currently, the most recent comprehensive data on prairie dog distribution is from the 1980s; 

new colony surveys are needed to determine where conservation efforts should be focused and which 

colony sites require restoration efforts. Forrest et al. (1985) admonished, “All prairie dog colonies should 

be accurately and consistently mapped” (p. 28). Martin and Schroeder (1979) noted that aerial 

photography failed to identify many active colonies; these researchers recommended winter photography 

after snowfall as providing the best visibility of prairie dog colonies. The new RMP should require 

surveys to determine the spatial extent as well as periodic sampling protocols to index population trends 

within the major colonies.

Response: Currently, colonies have been mapped on the ground every year where known colonies exist. 

Efforts to locate towns outside of these areas are currently underway. Our protocols will require mapping 

of the extent of these towns every 3 years to document changes.

Comment: The black-footed ferret was once found throughout portions of Wyoming. Today, Wyoming’s 

only reintroduced populations reside in the Shirley Basin and near Arlington. The DEIS does not disclose 

whether black-footed ferrets have been documented within the Pinedale Field or if this is part of their 

historical range. According to Oakleaf et al. (1992), “The precarious status of black-footed ferrets is a 

direct result of habitat fragmentation through prairie dog (Cynomys spp.) eradication in the North 

American midwestern prairies” (p. i). Thus, ferret viability is closely tied to the population status of its 

prey species, prairie dogs. 

Response: Please see A18-5, where this information can be found.

Comment: Based on minimum viable population estimates for ferrets, viable ferret populations require 

prairie dog colonies of at least 3000 hectares, with a 4000-6000 hectare size being a more optimal 

minimum (Forrest et al. 1985). These researchers recommended that only towns with burrow densities 

greater than 10/ha be considered “colonies” for the purpose of reintroduction, and that intercolony 

distances should not exceed 20 km to facilitate ferret interchange. The DEIS does not disclose whether 

Pinedale RMP A27-607 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

there may be sites matching these criteria within the Pinedale planning area, but if such sites exist they 

would be of primary conservation concern and therefore should be protected under the RMP.

Response: Pages A18-5 through A18-8 discuss white-tailed prairie dog complex size suitable for blackfooted ferret reintroduction. Specific locations have not been disclosed because they primarily occur 

within intensively developed fields that will have ongoing development for the next 30 years.

Comment: In April 2003 The Committee for the High Desert, American Lands Alliance, Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance, The Center for Native Ecosystems, and the Oregon Natural Desert Association, 

petitioned for listing of the pygmy rabbit under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Due to drastic 

declines of its historic range, the pygmy rabbit has occupied habitat in Wyoming which is crucially 

important to survival and success of the species. This habitat is threatened by the oil and gas boom in the 

planning area. 

The best habitat areas for the BLM Wyoming Sensitive (BWS) pygmy rabbit occurs both on and adjacent 

to the Jonah Field. The ability of habitats in the planning area to support pygmy rabbits likely would 

decrease due to continued habitat disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and direct mortality. Yet the BLM 

has failed to incorporate appropriate protection measures into its DEIS to protect the species and its 

habitat. The pygmy rabbit is highly sensitive to habitat fragmentation. 

In addition, recreational hunter harvest of small game and shooting of prairie dogs and other small nongame mammals are anticipated to increase as a result of increased access to the planning area due to 

increased roads. The increased mortality experienced by small mammal populations also would have a 

cumulative impact on the predator species that depend upon them for prey. We urge BLM to take these 

impacts into consideration in the FEIS in order to provide adequate protections.

Response: Please see page 2-149 concerning actions protecting pygmy rabbits and their burrowing 

complexes. In addition, BLM has been conducting pygmy rabbit surveys throughout the planning area 

and has found more extensive presence beyond the areas mentioned by the commenter. BLM recognizes 

the pygmy rabbit as a sensitive species and intends to apply adequate protections throughout its range.

Comment: a. Page 2-47 states “traditional multiple use management, and accommodating all approved 

uses to the extent possible” as the management direction for Minimally Developed Areas. The granting of 

exceptions to seasonal restrictions for exploration should continue to be available as a tool when 

appropriate for accomplishing the stated goal. Currently, the BLM considers exception requests and 

grants them when the exception is justified by the specific situation, such as the species of concern is not 

using the area or an activity is in process and will be completed in a few days. The current practice of 

granting exceptions on either end of the stipulation period, especially on the front end, for a very limited 

period of time causes little or no stress to the target species when properly applied. c. 3. White-tailed 

prairie dogs: this section provides protection of WTPD towns greater than 12.5 acres in size. Appendix 18 

provides protection of towns greater than 200 acres and states that towns greater than 5000 acres are 

needed for Black-footed ferret re-introduction. We question the justification for protecting towns less than 

200 acres in size. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that WTPD use oil and gas field disturbance 

features (pipeline corridors, well sites, etc.) as town expansion or colonizing vehicles. It has not been 

demonstrated that these activities threaten the species. Large Block NSO d. 3. See comment above 

regarding WTPD. Unavailable Areas c. 3. WTPD: The requirement to install anti-raptor perching devises 

is not found in this section. Objective 7 This discussion would benefit from the introduction of the 

definition of the acronyms CAS and CRCT.

Response: The use of exceptions waivers and modifications is still considered a management tool and 

can be found in Appendix 8. Currently, there have not been any studies done on the effects of energy 

A27-608 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

developments on prairie dog towns in the planning area; prairie dogs have anecdotally been observed in 

reclaimed habitats where there has not been current activity for several years. However, the burrow 

density appears to have decreased since the beginning of the development. In addition, white and blacktailed prairie dogs are sensitive species for BLM, which is why there are provisions to protect towns of 

less than 12 acres, This is an issue that is separate from the protection requirements for black-footed 

ferrets, a species listed under the ESA. The acronyms, CAS and CRCT, are spelled out at first instance in 

Chapter 2. Both acronyms are also included in the List of Acronyms in the draft EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 2-149, SECTION: WTPD, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: • Prairie dog poisoning 

would be prohibited in all WTPD towns and complexes except for demonstrated human health and safety 

needs or for other demonstrated emergency reasons or where towns are within 1 mile of private land or 

state leased land. EXPLANATION: BLM needs to allow poisoning close to private land, otherwise 

prairie dogs will be an intractable nuisance.

Response: The prairie dog is a sensitive species for BLM because of disease, poisoning, and prairie dog 

shooting. The prairie dog has been proposed for listing under the ESA. BLM cannot accept this change.

Comment: PAGE:2-150, RECOMMENDED CHANGE:• Prairie dog poisoning would be prohibited in 

all WTPD towns and complexes except for demonstrated human health and safety needs or for other 

demonstrated emergency reasons or where towns are within 1⁄2 mile of private land or state leased land. 

Response: Location of a prairie dog town within 1⁄2-mile of state or private land does not constitute a 

health emergency.

Comment: Beavers are architects of stream ecosystem function. Ohmart (1996) asserted that beavers are 

a keystone species in small-order streams, creating habitats used by many other species. Beaver dams also 

are arbiters of fundamental hydrologic change, creating ponds, raising the water table, reducing stream 

velocities during flood events, and reducing the suspended solids in a stream (Parker et al. 1985). The 

restoration of beavers to their native habitats has many benefits for aquatic ecosystems. Apple (1985) 

reported that the restoration of beavers resulted in dissipation of streamflow energies and raising of water 

tables along Sage Creek in the Rawlins Field Office. In this study, the combination of beaver 

reintroduction and rest from grazing resulted in a 20% increase in avian species richness. We recommend 

BLM commit to efforts in the RMP to reintroduce beaver to streams where it once occurred and is now 

gone.

Response: BLM will work with WGFD on projects to restore hydrologic function to watersheds.

Fish, Fisheries, and Riparian 

Comment: PAGE: 4-183 SECTION: 4.17.3 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Fisheries are 

directly affected by the condition of riparian areas. [Surface disturbing activities, such as ROWs for linear 

actions (e.g., pipelines, roads, and utilities) and construction of well pads and other facilities, could 

adversely affect watershed resources, riparian areas, and fisheries. Road construction in the vicinity of 

streams could adversely impact fish habitats by altering the hydrology and the associated riparian zone, 

causing erosion, loss of aquatic and riparian vegetation, and increased sedimentation.](STRIKEOUT) 

EXPLANATION: Impact untrue since RMP precludes or limits construction in wetlands and riparian 

areas. The term “vicinity of streams” is too vague. To affect streams and thus fisheries the soil must reach 

the stream. Not all surface disturbing activities are close enough to affect streams. 

Response: These types of impacts have been documented on many occasions. It is true that RMP 

stipulations are put in place to try and limit these impacts, but they still “could” occur, as the sentence 

reads. The point is to make this clear and to not only provide for management actions in the RMP, but to 

Pinedale RMP A27-609 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

further address these impacts at the site-specific stage of implementation. Minor changes have been made 

in the text of the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 4-184 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE to correct 

inaccuracies and exaggeration. The impacts of [livestock](STRIKEOUT) overuse 

[grazing](STRIKEOUT) by livestock wildlife and wild horses [management](STRIKEOUT) on stream 

processes and fish habitats include the loss of stabilizing riparian vegetation, which can lead to stream 

instability and an associated loss of habitat complexity; the loss of shading vegetation, which can lead to 

elevated stream temperatures; increased sediment delivery; and loss of stream channel complexity 

provided by fluvial processes and woody debris. The degree of impact would depend on 

[livestock](STRIKEOUT) grazing intensity, site characteristics, and species habitat requirements 

(Armour et al. 1991, White 1996, Rinne 1999). EXPLANATION: Management does not harm stream 

process. Grazing impacts are grazing impacts without regard to species. Harm comes from overgrazing 

not all grazing.

Response: The information in the draft EIS was obtained from the references provided and is referring to 

livestock grazing, not wildlife and wild horses. The commenter has previously pointed out that there are 

no wild horses in the planning area. Wild horses and wildlife have been known to overgraze areas, but not 

to this degree in the planning area. It has been documented for livestock grazing in the PFO. The text has 

been modified in the final EIS.

Comment: This plan is foolish on many fronts. Firstly, drilling gas wells on this scale in this area can 

only degrade the down river fish and wildlife habitat and quality. 

Response: Mitigations for impacts to down river fish may be found in Appendix 3.

Comment: Chapter 2 Page 143 Commentor WGFD Wildlife and Habitat Management. Objective 1 

Action - Recommend that no CRC conservation population watershed be included in the Intensively 

Developed Areas.

Response: BLM is working with WGFD fish biologists to obtain this information; any updates will be 

included in the record of decision. BLM does not have authority to prohibit development of existing valid 

oil and gas leases. 

Comment: Also on page 4-186, last partial paragraph, it states that “Mineral development would likely 

deplete water from the Colorado River system. Water depletion can affect fisheries locally and 

downstream from the planning area.” Geologically speaking this is likely impossible as the gas reservoirs 

being produced are confined (i.e. under pressure) and at great depth, both factors make them unconnected 

to the Colorado River system. The continuation of this paragraph on pg 4-187 states “depletions may 

affect, and are likely to adversely affect, Colorado River sensitive species.” This is not possible. The first 

full paragraph on the same page states “Based on the depth of the targeted coal formation (1,200 to 5,000 

feet) and high pressures in most reservoirs, it is unlike that a connection to the surface waters would 

exist.” This same logic applies to the discussion above. This is further supported by the statement found 

in the last paragraph on pg 4-188 which states “Groundwater and surface water interaction typically 

occurs in shallow aquifers; increased depths reduce the likelihood of impacts from groundwater 

pumping.”

Response: The conversations between USFWS and BLM on their consultation responsibilities under the 

ESA have stated that unless BLM or operators are willing to prove through hydrologic studies that these 

waters are not connected to the Colorado River system, there is no way to prove they are not.

A27-610 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: Colorado River Cutthroat Trout: Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) are the only native 

trout to Wyoming’s Green River drainage. Formerly found west of the Continental Divide, in Colorado, 

southern Wyoming, eastern Utah, and extreme northwestern New Mexico and northeastern Arizona, the 

Colorado River cutthroat trout occupies less than five percent of its historic range, primarily in isolated, 

small headwater streams. This severe range reduction was primarily caused by the stocking and spread of 

non-native trout, livestock grazing, water diversion, logging, roads and mining. As a result the species has 

been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

Throughout the range of CRCT, livestock grazing is occurring in and adjacent to streams harboring 66% 

of remaining pure populations and is known to be negatively affecting the habitat of 34% of these 

populations. In large part because of non-native trout, but also habitat degradation, the Colorado River 

cutthroat trout is now found in exceedingly small and isolated streams. As a result, most populations 

consist of far less than 200 reproducing individuals, which is below minimum numbers to preserve 

genetic integrity and population viability. This problem is exacerbated by the isolation of populations, 

precluding genetic interchange among populations. Populations in small streams are also highly subject to 

extirpation caused by stochastic disturbances, such as drought, fire, landslides, or flood. Once populations 

are lost to these factors, there is little chance habitat will be recolonized naturally because of the isolation 

of most current populations. 

Additionally, whirling disease has been identified in some of the planning area streams. Cutthroat trout 

populations at most risk from whirling disease are those in streams with a high level of fine sediment and 

relatively warm temperatures that provide suitable habitat for Tubifex tubifex, one of the hosts needed to 

complete the life cycle of the Myxobolus cerebralis parasite. The BLM has failed to document how 

continual loss of riparian vegetation that regulates temperatures and continued bank trampling that inputs 

sediment into streams will affect the ability of whirling disease to spread and what effect the disease will 

have on very important native trout populations. The FEIS should consider an alternative that would 

remove domestic livestock grazing from streams known to support CRCT.

Response: BLM believes that the alternatives in the current final EIS provide a broad range actions 

sufficient for analysis and that total removal of livestock from all CRCT streams would not be needed. 

Removal of livestock from portions of CRCT streams is always a management option through the use of 

exclosures. BLM and other agencies have already signed the Conservation Agreement and Strategy for 

managing CRCT. BLM is committed through that document and other activity plans to not only maintain 

CRCT populations and habitat but expand and enhance them where possible. BLM will continue to work 

with WGFD, the USFS, TU, and other entities for the protection and enhancement of CRCT habitats and 

populations.

Comment: The term “conservation” is defined under the ESA to, mean “the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at 

which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(3) 

(emphasis added). Thus, conservation goes beyond the mere avoidance of “jeopardy”; it requires agencies 

to develop and implement affirmative conservation programs to protect and recover listed species. The 

RMP DEIS indicates the BLM is not meeting these requirements for imperiled aquatic species and their 

ecosystems.

Response: BLM is completing regulatory requirements under the ESA for the Colorado River fishes and 

is working with WGFD on sensitive fishes. Please see Appendix 18.

Comment: The ESA requires BLM to use the agency’s full authorities to develop a conservation program 

for the endangered aquatic species being imperiled by water depletions associated with management 

activities on BLM lands in the PRA and region-wide. I am asking the BLM to develop region-wide 

Pinedale RMP A27-611 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

conservation programs - with cooperation of the FWS and Forest Service - that use all methods and 

procedures necessary to help bring the endangered and threatened species in the Colorado River Basin 

and Columbia River Basin to the point where ESA protections are no longer necessary, as instructed by 

16 U.S.C. § 1532(3). The goals of the programs should be to minimize water depletions and thereby 

restore the aquatic ecosystems upon which those species (and countless others) depend. The Final EIS 

(and any revised or supplemental draft EIS) should also include a thorough analysis of cumulative 

impacts associated with water depletions in the two Basins. I am also requesting that the BLM promptly 

initiate Section 7 consultation with the FWS concerning water depletions - and associated impacts to the 

listed aquatic species and their habitats - directly or indirectly resulting from activities in the PRA.

Response: BLM is completing regulatory requirements under the ESA for the Colorado River fishes and 

is working with WGFD on sensitive fishes. Please see Appendix 18. USFWS has a conservation program 

in place for these basins for implementing the recovery plan for these species.

Comment: There are some other monitoring items I believe are necessary and beneficial for the Pinedale 

Resource Area RMP. These include the following: 

• Population status (e.g., increasing, stable, continuing to decline) of endangered and threatened 

aquatic species (fish, mollusks, etc.) in the Colorado River Basin and Snake River. 

• Population status of native cutthroat trout (including projections of hybridization and other 

emerging threats such as parasites) and other Special Status Species.

Response: WGFD, USFWS, and the game and fish divisions of the other states that contain the Colorado 

and Snake rivers are implementing these efforts.

Comment: PAGE: 4-186 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Mineral development would 

likely deplete water from the Colorado River system. Water depletion can affect fisheries locally and 

downstream from the planning area. Though not calculated in this land use planning document for each 

alternative (amounts will be handled through site-specific environmental documents by project and 

proponent), depletions may affect, and are likely to adversely affect, Colorado River sensitive 

species.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: This sentence makes no sense. If mineral development were 

to deplete the Colorado River system it would set of multi-state water rights violations. Statement itself 

shows profound lack of understanding about geology and ground water. It assumes that produced water 

from drilling comes from the same recharge systems that form part of the Colorado River system. This 

assumption is incorrect and thus the entire paragraph needs to be deleted. The Flaming Gorge reservoir 

regulates flows in river system so even if there is a connection, the system itself is entirely buffered from 

any changes.

Response: Conversations between USFWS and BLM on their consultation responsibilities under the ESA 

have stated that unless BLM or operators are willing to prove through hydrologic studies that these waters 

are not connected to the Colorado River system, there is no way to prove they are not.

Comment: PAGE:2-151, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Objective 7 Provide suitable habitat to ensure 

long-term species sustainability and functioning habitats to support the CAS for CRCT in the States of 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. EXPLANATION: See Taylor at 3.

Response: BLM and other agencies have already signed the Conservation Agreement and Strategy for 

managing CRCT. BLM is committed through that document and other activity plans to not only maintain 

CRCT populations and habitat but expand and enhance them where possible. BLM will continue to work 

A27-612 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

with WGFD, USFS, TU, and other entities for the protection and enhancement of CRCT habitats and 

populations.

Comment: New or widened stream crossing (roads, pipelines, etc.) should not be allowed in waters with 

non-hybridized populations of native cutthroat trout. Other ground-disturbing activities should be 

prohibited in areas where they could result in increased sedimentation of streams containing nonhybridized populations of native cutthroat trout.

Response: It is not always reasonable to prohibit linear crossings of streams. Populations of CRCT occur 

in a number of streams. This action would effectively prohibit linear ROWs over a large area. The draft 

EIS provides for linear crossings of streams to be constructed in a way that would not be harmful to 

CRCT and other species and riparian systems. New management actions have been added to the proposed 

RMP in the final EIS to address this issue.

Comment: The DEIS states “planning decisions in the RMP will apply only to the BLM-administered 

public land surface and mineral estate in the planning area” [Map 1-1]. It is the Service’s understanding 

that the area surrounding the habitat of the endangered Kendall Warm Springs dace (Rhinichthys osculus 

thermalis) is not included within the Pinedale RMP planning area. That habitat is, instead, within the 

planning area of the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Although the 

BLMin Wyoming may assist the U. S. Forest Service in leasing federal mineral estate within the BridgerTeton National Forest, those areas fall under a separate Federal Land Use Plan and activities there will not 

undergo setion 7 consultation under the Act as part of the Bureau’s Pinedale RMP section 7 consultation. 

However, the Service expects that the Bureau if planning to analyze and consult on its potential impacts 

to the Kendall Warm Springs dace under the Bridger-Teton National Forest Plan as part of the Bureau’s 

programmatic BAs and BOs.

Response: If BLM is part of a federal action at Kendall Warm Springs, BLM would consult with USFWS 

on any action affecting the Kendall Warm Springs Dace.

Comment: Since it is science-based facts that have determined that the Colorado River Cutthroat trout 

now occupies 14% of its former range, it should be a high priority for the BLM to consider protecting as 

much of its native range as possible. This can be done by addressing the ACEC proposals and special 

management areas below as well as strictly enforcing development and production impacts through 

monitoring and establishing protocols for resolving impacts.

Response: BLM is working with WGFD on mapping the areas of native range. Many of the ACEC 

designations are to protect these habitats.

Comment: Chapter 2 Page 104 Commentor WGFD “no stream activities from June 1 through Aug 15 

would be allowed”. This wording is confusing and should be reworded. The way it is worded states that 

the only time they could do stream channel work is between June 1- August 15th. We recommend 

changing the language to the following: “To protect spawning CRC, redds and fry, instream disturbing 

activities would be prohibited between June 1 and August 15th.”

Response: This action has been edited for clarity in the final EIS.

Comment: The 500 foot buffer from riparian zones has disappeared all but Alternative 1 in this 

document. Industry is given explicit directions on how to except or waive wildlife seasonal restrictions. 

The NSO stipulation can be lifted if industry shows the need to get their product.. Best management 

practices are described, but only applied if deemed “practicable”.

Pinedale RMP A27-613 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Response: Alternative 1 describes the 500' restriction on page 2-44 under “Surface Disturbance 

Restriction”; Alternative 2 does not describe this as a restriction; Alternative 3 describes the 500' 

restriction on pages 2-97 and 2-98 in the Watershed and Water Quality section; and in Alternative 4 on 

pages 2-140 and 2-141 it is also in the Watershed and Water Quality section. It is also in the Recreation 

section of Alternative 3 on page 2-85; the Wildland Fire and Fuels Management section of Alternative 3 

on page 2-99; and the Wildland Fire and Fuels Management section of Alternative 4 on page 2-142. Table 

2-31 has been edited for agreement with the text.

Wild Horses 

Comment: PAGE: 3-113, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Insert 3.18 WILD HORSES Wild horses were 

removed from the Pinedale RMPPA in the early 1990s (Powell 2002), as specified in the 1988 RMP. The 

two herd management areas, Desert Herd and LaBarge Herd, still exist but are not managed for wild 

horses at present. The removal of the wild horse herds has resulted in decreased conflicts for forage and 

water. A small wild horse group eluded capture in the 1990s and remains in the Desert Herd management 

area, mainly in the South Desert Allotment. Currently, the herd number is low (around 12 ), and conflicts 

with the resource use in that area are minimal. However, in accordance with the consent decree with the 

State of Wyoming, all of the wild horses will be removed in accordance with the schedule. 

EXPLANATION: Chapter 3 omits any discussion of wild horses although they are readily visible from 

Highway 191. The recommended section comes from the MSA 3-93 with changes made to reflect the 

consent decree between BLM and the State of Wyoming.

Response: The final EIS has been updated to include this information.

Comment: PAGE: 4-161, SECTION: 4.13.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE BLM will 

immediately remove all wild horses per consent decree between State of Wyoming and BLM. 

EXPLANATION: BLM must remove wild horses and this would significantly contribute to vegetation 

vigor. Unless and until, the EIS must address current impacts of failure to manage wild horses and 

comply with consent decree.

Response: Please see page 2-12 where this action appears.

Comment: PAGE: G-25 CHANGE: WILD HORSE HERD MANAGEMENT AREA EXPLANATION: 

Per 43 C.F.R. § 4710.3-1.

Response: This definition has been added.

Comment: PAGE: 2-12 SECTION: 2.3.12 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE These wild horse 

HAs (Map 2-5) would not be utilized by wild horses and [but](strikeout) would not be retained. 

EXPLANATION: Herd areas need not be retained if horses are removed, as they must be under the 

Consent Decree. Herd Area - means the geographic area identified as having been used by a herd as its 

habitat in 1971. Wild Horse Act requires protection of herd management areas.

Response: Based on the 1971 Act and congressional authority, a herd area is always retained whether 

there is a horse there or not. An identified herd area does not lose any of its status/authority/recognition 

once horses are removed due to such things as habitat loss, insufficient habitat (forage, water, acreage, 

etc.), or landownership patterns. BLM specifically manages herd management areas for horses. BLM 

control their numbers, the habitat, etc. If a herd management area is currently managed for horses and 

BLM determines that it should no longer be managed for horses due to one of the items/reasons 

mentioned earlier, BLM accomplished the change through a land use planning amendment or in new land 

use plan. BLM indicates that the area will retain its herd area status and then remove the horses. It is now 

a herd area not a herd management area. A herd area can be upgraded to a herd management area for 

A27-614 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

management of horses should conditions change and allow for the management of horses. The change 

would also be effected through a land use planning process.

Big Game, Migration Routes 

Comment: The seasonal migrations of pronghorn that pass through this valley are unparalleled and 

represent a piece of American natural history that has largely been lost. The pronghorn migration through 

the Upper Green is estimated to be one of the longest overland migration routes in the world, and has 

persisted even as up to 75% of other migration routes in the area have been lost to human-induced 

landscape change (Berger 2003 & 2004) including energy extraction activities. Under FLPMA, the BLM 

has obligations to act for the preservation of wildlife and events of scientific and historical importance. 

Please keep in mind these obligations as you move forward with the RMP for the Upper Green.

Response: Migration routes have been compromised in the areas containing established natural gas 

development as well as in residential developments. Protection will be afforded in the Unavailable Areas 

in addition to the ROW exclusion and avoidance areas found on Map 2-32 where many of these routes 

come off the Wind River and Wyoming ranges. Outside these areas, migration routes and bottlenecks 

would be protected through avoidance, redesign of projects, seasonal restrictions, or other appropriate 

means. 

Comment: As the BLM considers a management plan for the Upper Green River Valley remember that 

this is a very important wildlife migration corridor. It is necessary to minimize the impact on the land and 

wildlife, strengthen seasonal drilling restrictions and to withdraw further critical areas from new leasing 

or development.

Response: Protection will be afforded in the Unavailable Areas in addition to the ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas found on Map 2-32. Outside these areas, migration routes and bottlenecks would be 

protected through avoidance, redesign of projects, seasonal restrictions, or other appropriate means. 

Comment: Migration corridors are essential to sustaining the health and future of wildlife. 

Response: Migration routes have been compromised in the areas containing established natural gas 

development as well as in residential developments. Protection will be afforded in the Unavailable Areas 

in addition to the ROW exclusion and avoidance areas found on Map 2-32 where many of these routes 

come off the Wind River and Wyoming ranges. Outside these areas, migration routes and bottlenecks 

would be protected through avoidance, redesign of projects, seasonal restrictions, or other appropriate 

means. 

Comment: By this fence on the southern boarder we will be destroying a part of the migration route. 

How much more damage can we afford and still have life? 

Response: All fences on BLM lands are required to comply with BLM Manual Handbook H-1741-1-

Fencing; this manual provides fencing guidelines for wildlife.

Comment: I write to urge you to prohibit more oil& gas leasing of lands as well as oil & gas 

development in the environmentally sensitive areas. That area is so important to big game migration, 

especially the pronghorn, who have been using that corridor for over 6,000 years. It would be a shame to 

lose that amazing history due to our energy needs. So please take into consideration their bottleneck areas 

as well as their winter range (their limiting factor). As well as the other wildlife areas; sage grouse leks, 

moose winter range, etc.

Pinedale RMP A27-615 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Response: Migration routes have been compromised in the areas containing established natural gas 

development as well as in residential developments. Protection will be afforded in the Unavailable Areas 

in addition to the ROW exclusion and avoidance areas found on Map 2-32 where many of these routes 

come off the Wind River and Wyoming ranges. Outside these areas, migration routes and bottlenecks 

would be protected through avoidance, redesign of projects, seasonal restrictions, or other appropriate 

means. These areas are also protected under ACECs, SMAs, wilderness study areas and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers. Information about these protections can be found on pages 4-212 through 4-232. 

Comment: I am especially concerned about wildlife migration corridors. They have been used for 

millenia, and disrupting them now, and so suddenly, may mean the demise of antelpe and deer. The same 

is true for sage grouse and their leks. Please realize that Americans care about more than money and oil. 

Please protect the Upper Green River. 

Response: Migration routes have been compromised in the areas containing established natural gas 

development as well as in residential developments. Protection will be afforded in the Unavailable Areas 

in addition to the ROW exclusion and avoidance areas found on Map 2-32 where many of these routes 

come off the Wind River and Wyoming ranges. Outside these areas, migration routes and bottlenecks 

would be protected through avoidance, redesign of projects, seasonal restrictions, or other appropriate 

means. These areas are also protected under ACECs, SMAs, wilderness study areas and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers. Information about these protections can be found on pages 4-212 through 4-232. 

Comment: I concerned about wildlife populations in the Pinedale Resource Area due to potential oil 

drillings. Migration routes and breeding grounds have been established and are integral to animal 

wellbeing. Encroachment threatens the retention of animals other than ourselves. I would like to think that 

for generations we can observe the herds of big game or see the leks of the grouse in the early spring 

mornings. 

Response: Migration routes have been compromised in the areas containing established natural gas 

development as well as in residential developments. Protection will be afforded in the Unavailable Areas 

in addition to the ROW exclusion and avoidance areas found on Map 2-32 where many of these routes 

come off the Wind River and Wyoming Ranges. Outside these areas, migration routes and bottlenecks 

would be protected through avoidance, redesign of projects, seasonal restrictions, or other appropriate 

means. Migration routes and some of the breeding grounds are also protected under ACECs, SMAs, 

wilderness study areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Information about these protections can be found on 

pages 4-212 through 4-232. 

Comment: A number of studies have shown that elk avoid open roads (Grover and Thompson 1986, 

Rowland et al. 2000). Edge and Marcum (1991) found that elk use was reduced within 1.5 km of 

roads,except where there was topographic cover. Gratson and Whitman (2000) found that hunter success 

was higher in roadless areas than in heavily roaded areas, and that closing roads increased hunter success 

rates. On the Black Hills, elk chose their day bedding sites to avoid tertiary roads and even horse trails 

(Cooper and Millspaugh 1999). Cole et al. (1997) found that reducing open road densities led to smaller 

elk home ranges, fewer movements, and higher survival rates. The reduction of road densities on the 

winter ranges as a whole and the maintenance of low road densities in important habitat areas would aid 

in maintaining healthy elk populations.

Response: Please see the transportation planning section, as well as the recreation section relating to 

OHV. The reduction of road densities will be considered if it is found to be necessary for ecosystem 

function. 

A27-616 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: We find the current federal and state management of our wildlife resources to be reactive, 

with no clear plans to maintain, improve or restore habitats so vital to the future of our wildlife 

populations. Accordingly, we insist that the following corrective actions be considered and implemented: 

2. Big game population objectives should be based on habitat availability, not hunter desires, or state 

revenues through license sales. Hunting seasons should be based on habitat sustainability and not trophy 

hunting or outfitter economics.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to regulate the actions proposed; BLM’s jurisdiction is in the 

realm of habitat protection. WGFD regulates population objectives and therefore hunting seasons.

Comment: The crucial wildlife ranges are inaccurate. The winter ranges are close, but not right. What is 

obviously absent are parturition (birthing areas). An attempt was made to identify them for elk but deer 

and pronghorn were apparently overlooked. Most sagebrush communities north of the Piney Cutoff are 

pronghom parturition areas. The mountain big sagebrush, aspen and conifer areas are deer parturition 

areas. Your maps are totally inaccurate.

Response: BLM receives big game seasonal habitat information from WGFD. WGFD updated the crucial 

winter ranges in 2006; the Department is currently remapping the parturition habitats.

Comment: Antelope and Mule Deer: Please take a look at maps 3-15 and 3-16 of the EIS regarding 

Pronghorn and Mule Deer seasonal use areas: Compare the EIS maps to the enclosed maps from 

Wyoming Fish and Game Regional office entitled “Antelope Seasonal Ranges and Migration Corridors” 

as of 5/7/07. One can see that the ranges and corridors extend further north and are wider than the ones 

used by the authors of the EIS. The BLM map neglects to include the primary migration route for 

antelope and mule deer. The only plan that recognizes the migration corridor is Alternative #3. Once 

again, it begs the question of why are BLM’s maps different then the Wyoming Game and Fish’s maps? 

Where does the BLM get its information? 

Response: These changes were identified and have been updated for the final EIS. Any future changes 

will also be incorporated into the record of decision. Updated migration corridor maps are being 

developed between BLM and WGFD and the decisions will be updated to protect the corridors and 

bottlenecks.

Comment: At the very least, withdraw your plans to lease the New Fork and Upper Green areas. Deny 

leasing in the Bench Corral, Cottonwood and Ryegrass areas that are needed for big and small game. 

Those are vital seasonal areas for big game moving to and from summer range in the Wyoming Range 

and may have to constitute whatever winter range that’s left for them.

Response: The areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing have been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: We are extremely concerned that actions taken under the proposed RMP may exacerbate 

observed declines in and impacts to both pronghorn and mule deer affecting the summering segments and 

their continued presence in GTNP. We firmly believe that the long-term persistence of these species in 

and adjacent to the park can only be assured by providing secure wintering and transitional habitats and 

functional movement corridors. 

Recent research (Sawyer et al. 2005, 2006a, 2006b; Berger et al. 2006.) has documented declines in mule 

deer populations and impacts to pronghorn habitat use from gas field activities. Despite these negative 

trends the DEIS calls for further oil and gas development, but lacks any assurances of whether and how 

certain population levels of these species will be maintained throughout the development process. The 

Pinedale RMP A27-617 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

final RMP should identify quantifiable population and habitat thresholds or trigger points for pronghorn 

and mule deer that would signal a need for a change in management direction. 

Overall, we do not believe that the preferred alternative (Alternative 4) goes far enough to ensure that 

populations of big game species are not further impacted. Without specific trigger points, a clear road 

map for how performance-based mitigation will be applied, and an understanding of the enforceability of 

best management practices, we are concerned that additional energy related exploration and development 

could result in impacts that are effectively the straws that break the camel’s back, initiating an irreversible 

decline and eventual loss of pronghorn and mule deer from park environs. Therefore, we urge you to 

develop and select an alternative that: 1) maintains and enforces seasonal drilling stipulations that protect 

wildlife, 2) implements ACEC’s, NSO and special management designations to protect crucial big game 

winter and transitional ranges, migration routes and migration bottlenecks and 3) requires 

environmentally protective measures. 

Response: Further discussion on the impacts of populations outside Sublette County has been added.

Comment: 4. Affected Environment - Chapter 3. The DEIS fails to provide a comprehensive description 

of the status of mule deer and pronghorn populations and recent changes documented in population 

densities, habitat use patterns and survival that are almost certainly attributed to ongoing oil and gas field 

development. The Affected Environment section should describe current conditions and trends of 

elements in the environment. Relative to mule deer and pronghorn this should include a summary of 

recently documented site-specific impacts and disclosure of the conditions under which these trends have 

been observed (e.g. recent oil and gas development and production conducted with a relaxation of crucial 

winter range stipulations). 

Response: Information on the status of mule deer and pronghorn populations has been added to Chapter 3 

in the final EIS.

Comment: 5. Page 4 -184 and other portions of Chapter 4. The DEIS acknowledges that the primary 

impacts on big game species due to minerals development within the planning area would be reductions 

in usable wildlife habitat and disruption of migration corridors that link crucial habitats (winter range) and 

parturition areas. Projections suggest that reductions would be particularly severe in areas with continuous 

areas of surface disturbance. Fragmentation of important habitats, especially of crucial winter ranges, is 

an important consideration particularly because recent research by Sawyer et al. (2006) has highlighted 

dramatic impacts to mule deer when only 2% of winter ranges were directly impacted by energy 

development. These results suggest that observed impacts are likely attributable to indirect habitat 

impacts like fragmentation. Although habitat fragmentation is acknowledged, the DEIS does not analyze 

impacts in sufficient depth. The final RMP should provide a more detailed and quantitative assessment of 

likely fragmentation impacts under each alternative. 

Response: Outside the Jonah and Anticline fields, it is not possible to predict development with enough 

accuracy to do a meaningful analysis of the effects of fragmentation.

Comment: 6. Page 4-185. Environmental Consequences: The magnitude of impacts to pronghorn and 

mule deer populations and habitats are not adequately addressed to allow the reader to discern level of 

impacts between alternatives. The final RMP should more thoroughly analyze impacts including likely 

population level impacts. 

7. Page 4-209 and 4-210. Analysis of impacts under the preferred alternative suggests that “Actions in 

Intensively Developed Fields could push the thresholds of big game tolerance to disturbance on crucial 

winter ranges and parturition habitats. On the next page the following statement is made “...wildlife 

A27-618 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

habitat would generally only be protected if a mineral commodity is not present for extraction.” These 

statements are not consistent with the objective on page 2-101 which states “Manage big game habitats to 

protect wildlife resource values”. 

Response: We cannot quantify the population impacts with enough specificity to compare them among 

alternatives.

Comment: Page Number & Issue:2-143: “Objective 1 Maintain sufficient undisturbed or minimally 

disturbed habitats to protect wildlife resource values while providing for multiple use management, 

including oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development.” Recommendations: Add “economically 

practicable”.

Response: BLM’s mission is to manage public resources, not to maximize economic returns.

Comment: Page Number & Issue:2-146: “f. BLM permitted activities would be designed and 

implemented to minimize impacts in big game parturition areas from May 1 to June 30 to the extent 

practicable. g. Surface activities would be designed and implemented to minimize impacts in big game 

crucial winter ranges from November 15 to April 30 (Map 3-19) to the extent practicable.” 

Recommendations: Add “economically practicable”.

Response: BLM’s mission is to manage public resources, not to maximize economic returns.

Comment: The limitations on development activities in big game habitat are unnecessary, and not 

supported by existing analysis. Development has, and can continue to be, conducted in big game habitat 

areas in such a way so as to protect wildlife resources, while still allowing domestic energy production

Response: Research conducted by Sawyer et al. (2006) on the Pinedale Anticline suggests winter habitat 

selection and distribution patterns of mule deer were affected by well pad development. Changes in 

habitat selection by mule deer appeared to be immediate (i.e., year 1 of development), and through 3 

years of development, no evidence was found that suggested mule deer acclimated or habituated to well 

pads. Rather, mule deer had progressively higher probability of use in areas further away from well pads 

as development progressed.

Comment: Mule deer and elk are important game species in the Pinedale planning area. These game 

animals contribute importantly to the Wyoming economy, both from hunting and wildlife viewing 

visitors. The Pinedale planning area contains a majority of the crucial winter habitat for pronghorn, mule 

deer, moose, and elk populations in the Upper Green River Basin. Thus, protections to maintain the 

viability of these big game species are needed in the planning area, and these protections should be 

focused on crucial winter ranges, crucial winter yearlong ranges, severe winter relief ranges, calving areas 

identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. This we believe has not been done. Large areas 

of crucial winter range will have little to no protection under the proposed alternatives. This is 

unacceptable.

Response: Alternative 3 and all of the areas unavailable for leasing and NSO areas aim to effectively 

protect big game habitats.

Comment: Loft et al. (1991) found that moderate to heavy cattle grazing pushed deer out of riparian 

habitats and into upland shrub communities that deer avoid when cattle are absent. These researchers 

noted that these habitat shifts could substantially impact deer populations, concluding that “high quality 

forage may be limiting on Sierra Nevada summer ranges grazed by cattle, thus contributing to suboptimal 

nutrition for female deer and their offspring” (p. 24). Elk avoid areas where livestock stocking rates are 

Pinedale RMP A27-619 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

high (Knowles and Campbell 1982), so standards and guidelines should be authored such that livestock 

are not present in calving areas during the calving season or crucial winter ranges between November 15 

and April 15. But in some cases, overgrazing by cattle and horses may improve winter range for mule 

deer (Hubbard and Hansen 1976, Reiner and Urness 1982) and elk (Reiner and Urness 1982) through 

stimulating shrub productivity. In the final analysis, livestock grazing should be managed in a way that 

does not reduce or impair the viability of elk and mule deer populations.

Response: The standards and guidelines or an ecosystem analysis approach to assess livestock grazing is 

meant to assess the viability of the habitat across the landscape. If problems are found, changes in 

management strategy are required.

Comment: Wintering elk, deer, and pronghorn are sensitive to disturbances of all kinds. Both 

snowmobiles and cross-country skiers are known to cause wintering ungulates to flee (Richens and 

Lavigne 1978, Eckstein et al. 1979, Aune 1981, Freddy et al. 1986). Because flight response may be 

particularly costly to wintering ungulates (Parker et al. 1984), disturbance on winter ranges should be 

avoided at all costs. As a result, winter ranges should be closed to both motorized and nonmotorized entry 

from November through April.

Response: BLM is currently closing big game winter ranges to motorized entry.

Comment: Chapter 3 Page 116 Commentor WGFD Edits to Table 3-32: Hunt Areas 97 and 98 needs to 

be deleted for the Upper Green River Herd Units. The average buck:doe ratio for Sublette Deer should be 

0.28:1; Wyoming Range Deer should be 0.32:1; Pinedale Elk should be 0.28:1; and Hoback Elk should be 

0.16:1. 

Response: Corrections have been made to Table 3-32 in the final EIS.

Comment: General comment Commentor Stroud BLM needs to have a good overall plan to protect 

wildlife, as well as some kind of plan (preferably a habitat management plan) to aid in the RMP effort, 

and to earmark areas for analysis to utilize the considerable amount of mitigation funds currently 

available and those to come. The current range of alternatives needs to be explored to allow for 

“mitigation” areas throughout the Field Office area, especially on the west side of the Field Office area. 

This is especially true for Bench Corral and Ryegrass, but not exclusive to them. This consideration 

should supplement an effort to continue to provide unleased areas to support mitigation efforts.

Response: Alternative 3 and all of the areas unavailable for leasing and NSO areas aim to effectively 

protect all big game habitats. Mitigation areas must be identified based on information gleaned from 

vegetation baseline inventories and wildlife population objectives. A habitat management plan is a sitespecific effort that would come after the RMP. 

Comment: The BLM lands within the planning area contain important habitat for pronghorn, mule deer, 

white-tailed deer and elk. Furthermore, these lands provide the majority of crucial winter habitat for mule 

deer and elk populations found in the Upper Green River Basin. Pinedale RMP DEIS at 3-115. The 

fragmentation and other damage to these habitats outlined in BLM’s Preferred Alternative cannot sustain 

big game populations.

Response: The impact analysis reveals that population impacts may occur.

Comment: The Pinedale RMP DEIS claims that “[t]he best available information pertinent to the 

management decisions was used in the development of the RMP.” Pinedale RMP DEIS at 4-2. We 

disagree. Although BLM does reference a wide-range of studies conducted on big game species and oil 

A27-620 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

and gas development, it does so only to describe potential impacts on game species. BLM does not go on 

to use this information to establish appropriate mitigation measures. For example, the DEIS references the 

Sublette Mule Deer Study, which found that mule deer experience reduced habitat effectiveness within 

160 acres surrounding each well pad. Sawyer and Lindzey 2001. While recognizing this study, at the 

same time the BLM asserts that well spacing throughout the developed fields would be a maximum of 

160-acres (5- to 10-acre spacing in the Jonah Field, 120- to 160-acre spacing in the Anticline Field and 

40- to 60-acre spacing in other oil and gas developments). Pinedale RMP DEIS at 4-184 to 4-185. That 

would mean reduced habitat effectiveness for mule deer over all drilled fields.

Response: The impact analysis reveals that population impacts may occur.

Comment: In addition to skepticism that timing limitations alone are sufficient to conserve big game 

populations once energy development exceeds a certain level, their effectiveness further decreases when 

exceptions are granted to industry, allowing them to enter and conduct activities on these crucial lands 

during restricted seasons. A review of BLM’s current exceptions to industry on crucial winter range 

showed that out of 23 requests so far for the 2006-2007 winter season, 19 have been granted (49 of 65 

requested exceptions have been granted so far overall). Accessed on 03/19/07 at 

http://www.wy.blm.gov.pfo/wildlife/exceptions.php. Because BLM regularly grants exceptions to winter 

stipulations, the effectiveness of timing limitations to mitigate impacts from surface disturbing activities 

is unknown.

Response: This issue extends to the existing infrastructure of the producing wells (Sawyer, et al., 2006, 

states that mule deer do not become acclimated to any stage of development), the continued human 

presence conducting maintenance actions (which are not regulated by BLM), and habitat fragmentation, 

in addition to the way the exception process is handled. Human presence does not cease during the timing 

restriction due to the maintenance actions necessary for the production phase. In addition, only BLM 

roads are closed during the timing restrictions, BLM does not have jurisdiction over county roads that 

surround the fields. 

Comment: Today the UGRB continues to support the largest, most diverse ungulate populations in the 

Rocky Mountain region. The Sublette mule deer and pronghorn populations (herd units), managed by the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), cover the core of the UGRB. The WGFD manages these 

two herd units to meet numerical objectives of 32,000 and 48,000, respectively. While the areas occupied 

by these two herd units are fairly large in size, wintering areas available to mule deer and pronghorn in 

this region are often restricted and relatively small in size. Nonetheless, UGRB winter ranges support 

more than 10% of total mule deer and pronghorn in Wyoming. The Sublette herd unit alone supports 

more pronghorn than any western state, except Colorado (~70,000) and Montana (~55,000). Additionally, 

mule deer and pronghorn migrations within the UGRB are among the longest in North America, often 

reaching or exceeding distances of 100 miles. 

Ungulate populations of the UGRB are valuable resources, both biologically and socially. While these 

populations summer over vast portions of western Wyoming, they rely on limited amounts of winter and 

transition range in the UGRB. Most of the winter and transition ranges occur on federal lands 

administered by the BLM, and must be balanced with other land uses, such as livestock grazing, 

recreation, and energy development. Negative impacts resulting from disturbances or habitat loss in 

winter or transition areas in the UGRB will not likely be localized; rather they will be evident across 

western Wyoming in the summer ranges these ungulate populations occupy. Of particular concern are the 

potential impacts to these populations from increased natural gas production and development in the 

UGRB. Domestic livestock grazing occurs throughout the area and detrimentally impacts habitat for these 

species as well as for a variety of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species across the planning area. 

Pinedale RMP A27-621 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

The Pinedale Resource Area also contains winter ranges that support an estimated 32,000 mule deer from 

five different mountain ranges and thousands of pronghorn, including some from as far away as Grand 

Teton National Park , and most of these areas are heavily utilized by domestic livestock grazing. 

Wyoming still has one of the strongest sage grouse populations in the world and will have a key role in 

deciding the fate of this magnificent species. In nearby states habitat loss and fragmentation has largely 

isolated populations, resulting in significant decreases in sage grouse numbers and local extinctions. 

Wyoming still has a mostly connected distribution, but if habitat fragmentation continues, the State’s 

presently linked sage grouse population will begin to unravel. Maintaining large, unbroken expanses of 

effective sage grouse habitat throughout Wyoming thus should be a top priority for land managers.

Response: Alternative 3 and all of the areas unavailable for leasing and NSO areas aim to effectively 

protect seasonal habitats for all sagebrush obligate species.

Comment: PAGE: 2-4 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE The area provides winter and 

transitional ranges, migration routes , [and contains migration bottlenecks](strikeout) for mule deer, 

pronghorn, elk, and moose; and lek, nesting, and brood rearing habitat for greater sage-grouse. CLG 

agrees with the decisions not to recommend the identified areas for ACEC consideration. As to Wind 

River Front, it is noted that the area is not in fact a migration bottleneck. The term bottleneck is inaccurate 

as there is continuous open space, just most of it is owned by private landowners. Significantly, the MSA 

did not identify any migration bottlenecks. There has not been any change in the area to justify the use of 

the term bottleneck. For purposes of accuracy, this discussion and the use of the term migration 

bottleneck should be removed from all of the RMP documents.

Response: Big game migration corridors and bottlenecks within the planning area are well documented. 

Most of the big game migration corridors extend beyond private land and onto state and federal lands, in 

some cases for hundreds of miles. Many migration corridors have been compromised, abandoned, or 

restricted (bottlenecked) because of development on federal and private lands. 

Comment: PAGE:2-146 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:i. Subject to existing leases, and if 

shown to be necessary to [To](strikeout) minimize fragmentation and human presence in winter ranges, 

access to big game crucial winter ranges outside producing gas fields may [would](strikeout) be limited to 

existing designated access routes. Exceptions would could be allowed to provide reasonable access to 

private or state-owned lands. EXPLANATION:The premise that elk are adversely affected by oil and gas 

development has been refuted in both Riley Ridge and Nitchey Gulch. BLM has no discretion to deny 

access to state trust lands or to private lands, especially in this situation.

Response: It is reasonable to manage oil and gas development to minimize impacts on other resources. 

BLM does not have authority to deny access to state or private lands and no part of the RMP attempts 

this. The reaction of elk to gas fields in other locations has little bearing on the impacts of intensive gas 

development in crucial mule deer and pronghorn winter ranges. 

Comment: PAGE:2-147 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:e. Big game migration 

[routes](strikeout) would be protected. EXPLANATION: There is no bottleneck as described in FEIS, 

because elk use private land for migration. The FEIS fails to recognize the adjacent land management that 

provides better migratory routes. Also not really a route. DEIs incorrectly describes migration through a 

bottleneck. There is in fact no bottleneck, since game animals move freely through private land, where 

there is the best water and forage as well.

Response: The presence of big game migration corridors and bottlenecks in the planning area is well 

documented. Many migration corridors have been compromised and abandoned because of development.

A27-622 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: PAGE: 2-147, RECOMMENDED CHANGE:[h. No surface disturbing or disruptive activities 

would be permitted in big game crucial winter ranges from November 15 to April 30 (Map 3-19).] 

(strikeout) EXPLANATION: This restriction is not warranted by science. There is a significant scientific 

controversy regarding the premise that elk and other game animals areharmed or adversely affected by 

human activities. See Taylor Report on JMH (2006). As a scientifically controversial issue, the EIS must 

address the issues. 40 C.F.R. §1508.27(b)(4). Big game animal numbers are well above target populations 

and arguably exceed habitat capacity. Thus there is little merit to imposing a 6-month NSO for winter 

time. The DEIS must also disclose to the extent that these restrictions cannot be applied to existing leases.

Response: WGFD has documented the need for the crucial winter range timing restrictions based on 

years of study and records of population dynamics, which is the reason this COA exists. BLM holds the 

right to use new information and science to protect wildlife from undue and unnecessary degradation.

Comment: PAGE: 4-180 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: The quality and quantity of 

winter ranges are generally considered to be the limiting factors on increasing big game populations in the 

planning area. The ability of these areas to support wintering populations is a major factor in determining 

year-long population levels. EXPLANATION: EIS needs to disclose that game numbers are far above 

targets set during previous planning cycle and above historical levels. It is true that habitat is a limiting 

factor but habitat is always a limiting factor and population levels are at all time highs.

Response: See page 3-116. Most big game populations are below objective. The Wyoming Range mule 

deer herd is almost 50% below objective.

Comment: PAGE: 4-211 SECTION: 4.17.7 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE NSO restrictions 

and other actions would be protective of these migration corridors and elk winter ranges, provided that the 

existing leases within these areas do not face drainage issues. [Ultimately, if mineral development occurs 

in these corridors, every effort must be made to prevent further narrowing of the migration corridors or 

degradation of the native elk winter range.](STRIKEOUT) Impacts from development will be evaluated 

based on role of state and private lands, where much of the migration currently occurs. EXPLANATION: 

While RMP may protect corridor not accurate to describe development as crisis, since migration occurs 

primarily on more productive private lands which follow river.

Response: Many of the big game migration routes extend beyond private land and onto state and federal 

lands, in some cases for hundreds of miles. There is no evidence that migration routes begin and end on 

private land. In particular, mule deer and pronghorn tend to migrate through high sagebrush habitats that 

are typically on BLM-administered public lands. 

Comment: Affected Environment: Information in this section of the DEIS does not provide an 

inadequate basis from which to assess potential impacts nor does it provide a baseline against which 

impacts can be measured. The document fails to discuss the fact that extensive areas of crucial big game 

habitat have already been developed and that habitat fragmention has resulted. Sawyer et al. (2006) report 

a 46% reduction in wintering mule deer on the mesa portion of the Pinedale Anticline associated with a 

2% direct habitat disturbance during 5 years of development there. The RMP/DEIS makes no mention of 

this fact. Population data for pronghorn in the narrative (3-116) are from 1994-1999 and thus are 

outdated. Current Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) data are available and should be used. 

Table 3-32 provides a point estimate from 2005 for big game populations and summarized population 

trends but provides no data to support this summary. Because the trigger for adaptive management (Table 

All-1) is a downward trend in animal occupancy measured in critical habitats, the BLM must provide the 

baseline data that will be used to assess future trends. Adequate data would consist of animal numbers and 

confidence estimates for populations in the critical habitats monitored. These omissions must be corrected 

in order to have a scientifically valid decision-making document underlying the land use plan.

Pinedale RMP A27-623 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Response: Information on the status of wildlife habitats and populations has been added to Chapter 3 in 

the final EIS.

Comment: Affected Environment: Acres of habitats are reported in this section, but habitat condition is 

not presented. Page 4-192 states that “impacts would be intensified in areas where winter range habitat is 

in unsuitable condition,” therefore knowledge of existing range is vital in assessing current conditions and 

evaluating impacts. Transition ranges are mentioned (3-117, 4-180) but not discussed in the document and 

according to Sawyer et al. (2006) mule deer and pronghorn using the Pinedale Resource Management 

Area spend between 5-6 months a year on transition ranges (3-117) and those authors further point out the 

undisputable fact that big game species require access to all needed ranges (not just crucial winter ranges) 

in order for populations to be maintained. Transition ranges must be identified, their condition specified 

and impacts to these areas analyzed. It is disconcerting that the last ecological condition inventory for the 

planning area is reported to have occurred in the mid-1980s (3-32). The importance of transition ranges 

for mule deer (Garrott et al. 1987) and pronghorn (Alldredge and Deblinger 1988) has also been 

emphasized in other studies.

Response: Habitat condition information has been added to Chapter 3 of the final EIS.

Comment: Freddy (1986) is incorrectly cited on page 4-185; that reference should be Freddy et al. 

(1986). Results from that study are not directly applicable to disturbances from energy development 

therefore the figure of deer response to disturbance of up to 0.29 miles underestimates the potential 

“ecological footprint” of energy development activities. Freddy et al. (1986) studied the impacts to 

wintering mule deer from people on foot and snowmobiles. Page 4-185 also states that habitat 

effectiveness may be compromised for 170 acres around a disturbance. This figure extremely 

underestimates the effective habitat losses. More recent literature indicates that deer avoid energy 

development activities up to 3 miles (Sawyer et al. 2006) and Sawyer et al. (2007) indicate that elk select 

habitats 1.7 miles from traveled roads. Rowland et al. (2000 and 2005) provides a discussion of elk 

distribution in relation to roads and Sawyer et al. (2007) discusses elk habitat selection the Jack Morrow 

Hills of Wyoming and considers the impact of roads. The message from all these scientifically credible 

studies is that the ecological footprint of anthropogenic actions is far greater than the mere physical 

footprint (Weller et al. 2002). The preliminary work of Berger et al. (2006) is providing similar evidence 

of the significant distances at which pronghorn avoid oil and gas disturbance. The BLM could have used 

current, scientific literature, their own experience and GIS capabilities to provide estimates for habitat 

losses and resulting population impacts associated with projected energy development thus providing an 

array of potential impacts that the reader/decision maker could use to evaluate more realistic 

consequences of energy development impacts to big game animals and their habitats.

Response: Roads and associated disturbances have been recognized as the primary agent changing elk 

distribution across seasons and landscapes (Rowland 2000). Habitat effectiveness for elk has been defined 

as the “percentage of available habitat that is usable by elk outside the hunting season” (Rowland 2000). 

Persistent road-mediated disturbance may lead to permanent shifts in habitat use by elk away from roads 

and thereby effect greater levels of herbivory in some sites (Rowland 2000). This phenomenon is already 

an issue in and around elk feedgrounds, which may be compounded at the feedgrounds nearest natural gas 

fields. Although total loss of elk habitat in relation to road construction in forested habitats is unknown, a 

rough estimate of 5 acres of habitat for 1 linear mile of road is typically applied (Rowland et al. 2005). In 

areas with higher road densities, studies have shown elk exhibit higher levels of stress and increased 

movement rates (Rowland et al. 2005). 

Comment: Monitoring: The adaptive management and performance based mitigations suggested in the 

DEIS depend on monitoring which is inadequately discussed in Appendix 11. “Monitoring methods are 

selected and/or designed to read the indicators as schedules of the resource monitoring table (Table All-1; 

A27-624 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

p. Al 1-1).” But there are no methods depicted in this table. The table indicates that big game seasonal 

habitats will be monitored and “numbers during the occupancy period” will be measured. The BLM needs 

to specify how numbers will be monitored and, to be valid, the sampling scheme must allow for 

calculation of statistical confidence (see Anderson 2001 for a discussion of problems in simple trend 

counts). Appendix 11 indicates that most monitoring data will be collected by other federal and state 

agencies. The BLM needs to provide assurances that those charged with monitoring, have the budgets and 

personnel to conduct monitoring and they must coordinate monitoring efforts to assure appropriate data 

are collected at appropriate times. The RMP/DEIS provides no assurances that credible data will be 

collected. As I earlier discussed measuring changes numbers of big game animals with precision 

necessary for application in adaptive management is not a trivial task. The BLM and their proposed 

adaptive management strategy would be better served to monitor changes in over-winter juvenile survival 

for pronghorn, deer and elk populations.

Response: BLM relies on the expertise of WGFD as population managers. WGFD has the authority to 

manage the state’s game populations.

Comment: PAGE:2-146 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:e. Oil and gas development activities 

would be designed and implemented to minimize impacts on big game during migration to the extent 

consistent with lease terms and practicability. 

Response: It is reasonable to manage oil and gas development to minimize impacts on other resources.

Comment: PAGE:2-146 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:f. BLM permitted activities would be 

designed and implemented to minimize impacts in big game parturition areas from May 1 to June 30 to 

the extent practicable and consistent with existing lease stipulations. 

Response: It is reasonable to manage oil and gas development to minimize impacts on other resources.

Comment: PAGE:2-146 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:g. Surface activities would be 

designed and implemented to minimize impacts in big game crucial winter ranges from November 15 to 

April 30 (Map 3-19) to the extent practicable and consistent with existing lease stipulations 

Response: It is reasonable to manage oil and gas development to minimize impacts on other resources.

Comment: The RMP DEIS fails to provide adequate baseline information regarding big game from 

which comparisons of impacts can be made.

Response: Population data was included in Table 3-32 of the draft EIS. This data has been updated in the 

final EIS. 

Comment: The analysis in the RMP DEIS fails to adequately consider the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts of actions authorized by the RMP on big game populations and habitats and does not 

consider relevant science in these regards.

Response: The document includes this information; please see pages 4-185 and 4-256.

Comment: The RMP DEIS fails to consider any alternative that would effectively protect big game 

habitats.

Response: Alternative 3 and all of the areas unavailable for leasing and NSO areas are designed to 

protect big game habitats.

Pinedale RMP A27-625 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Comment: PAGE:2-146 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:Objective 3 Maintain and enhance 

big game habitats to protect wildlife resource values within capacity of habitat and consistent with 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands while providing for multiple use management. 

EXPLANATION:BLM must manage the habitat and cannot adopt or accept WGFD numbers without first 

determining that the numbers will not cause resource damage or exceed habitat capacity. The RMP sets 

up the conflict where it accepts WGFD numbers and commits to existing AUMs for livestock. If it is 

going to take reductions from livestock, it must disclose and justify it. Current law and rules do not allow 

it.

Response: BLM has not committed to basing adaptive management thresholds on population numbers 

because BLM does not manage populations. BLM is committed to managing habitat for all resources. 

Rangeland health and sustainability has always dictated AUMs and recommendations of stocking rates. 

This will not change. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-180 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE Fish and wildlife 

populations would continue to be managed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). BLM 

would continue to manage wildlife habitat. Big game habitat would be managed in coordination with 

WGFD herd objectives and the Strategic Habitat Plan. Where big game use or habitat management 

contributes to failure to meet, maintain, or make progress towards meeting Wyoming Standards for 

Healthy Rangelands, BLM will take steps to coordinate reductions in big game and other corrective 

measures. EXPLANATION: While it is correct that BLM cannot regulate big game numbers, it cannot 

allow state agencies to impose conditions that interfere with achieving healthy rangelands. BLM is 

charged to meet standards and is further prevented from forcing livestock grazing reductions when the 

causation is due to excess numbers of big game.

Response: BLM will not reduce stock numbers if big game grazing is depleting forage resources. In this 

case BLM will work with WGFD to manage wildlife to maintain forage for both resources.

Comment: PAGE: A3-9 SECTION: Wildlife RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [Approved 

activities in crucial wildlife habitat may negatively affect BLM’s ability to support Wyoming Game and 

Fish herd numbers.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: WGFD numbers are not tied to habitat capacity or 

statutory requirements that must guide public land management. Accordingly, BLM cannot agree to adopt 

land management solely to meet WGFD numbers when no federal law mandates this and to do so requires 

ignoring other federal mandates, not the least of which is meeting and maintaining Wyoming Standards 

for Healthy Rangelands.

Response: The referenced statement does not imply that WGFD objectives would be the sole 

consideration in land management.

Comment: PAGE: 2-147,RECOMMENDED CHANGE:h. BLM permitted activities that are documented 

to be adverse to wildlife would be prohibited in big game parturition areas from May 1 to June 30. 

EXPLANATION: Too broad as written. Livestock operators would be prohibited from doing fence 

maintenance.

Response: The language is specific to permitted activities. No permit is required to maintain an existing 

fence. Newly issued permits for activities in parturition areas would carry the seasonal restriction. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-148, RECOMMENDED CHANGE:f. [Big game migration routes would be 

protected.] (strikeout) Management actions would consider and mitigate impacts on big game movement. 

EXPLANATION: The action assumes facts that are untrue. Most migration occurs on private land, so the 

area identified as a migration route is not in fact a route.

A27-626 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Response: The presence of big game migration corridors and bottlenecks in the planning area is well 

documented. Many migration corridors have been compromised and abandoned because of development.

Comment: The DEIS acknowledges (4-210) that the fewer acres of habitat in Unavailable Areas 

associated with Alternative 4 “could result in more animals dispersing off BLM lands because habitat loss 

and increased disturbances relating to mineral extraction.” Areas where animals might disperse are not 

identified and there is no indication that these areas are currently below carrying capacity such that could 

support additional animals. The disclosure (4-210) that, “wildlife habitat would generally only be 

protected if a mineral commodity is not present for extraction,” is an honest admission that the 

“Unavailable” and “Large Block NSO” areas are a facade with little potential for habitat protection. The 

last sentence in paragraph 3 (4-210) is confusing: “Appropriate mitigation and BMPs could alleviate 

human-caused disturbances; however, many of the species in this resource area have minimum habitat 

requirements that dictate their success.” This sentence needs clarification. As it currently reads I conclude 

that the BLM is admitting that BMPs and mitigation will likely not work. And I would further note that 

the work of Sawyer et al. (2006) has repeatedly emphasized the need of big game species for all habitats 

that they require over the course of a year.

Response: It is not possible to predict where dispersed animals might move to. There are no suitable 

habitat areas that are currently unoccupied that could support these dispersed animals. The impact 

analysis acknowledges that population reductions would be the ultimate impact of animal dispersal. As 

the commenter earlier pointed out, BLM is unable to provide full protection to most crucial winter ranges 

because of existing gas fields or valid leases in those areas. This does not mean that making areas 

unavailable for leasing in the future is a façade. The sentence has been edited to convey the message that, 

for species with very specific habitat needs, appropriate BMPs or mitigations might not be available.

Comment: The Monitoring Strategy Detailed for Big Game in the DEIS is inadequate. All action 

alternatives in the Pinedale RMP DEIS fail to provide crucial details on necessary monitoring and 

enforcement that could ensure the health of the Pinedale big game populations. The DEIS states only that 

“[m]ule deer, elk, antelope and sage grouse use patterns will be monitored.” Pinedale RMP DEIS at 2-17. 

However, the plan does not go into detail about how monitoring will be conducted or how results from 

monitoring will be incorporated into new mitigation measures. The DEIS states that monitoring of big 

game seasonal habitat will be conducted by aerial and field inspections to look for downward trends in 

animal occupancy. Pinedale RMP DEIS Appendix 11. Sawyer et al., however, recommended that 

population parameters (i.e. adult female survival, overwinter fawn survival, recruitment) be monitored so 

that changes in survival and reproduction can be documented. Sawyer et al. 2006. The DEIS provides no 

justification for a determination that aerial surveys and field inspections alone can show long-term 

population trends. 

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, as the RMP will not directly 

authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation and the 

methods to be used must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. The 

action alternatives contemplate the establishment of working groups that are intended to integrate the 

decision, implementation, mitigation, evaluation, and response process. 

Monitoring of wildlife populations and determination of population trends is the authority of the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. BLM would coordinate with WGFD in analysis of population data 

and development of mitigation measures. However, the EIS acknowledges that population impacts to big 

game may be viewed as a result of development in crucial winter ranges and other important habitats.

Comment: An additional thought: it is time to proceed with the national migration corridor. I was 

shocked to read that the spokesman for the BLM in Cheyenne, Steven Hall, made the comment in an 

Pinedale RMP A27-627 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

article in the Casper Star Tribune 6/15/07 “addressing the idea of a national migration corridor is outside 

the purview of the agency.” I would like to know where the responsibility for this lies. 

Response: The plan provides for protection of the pronghorn migration corridor between Trapper’s Point 

and the USFS boundary, as well as numerous other big game migration corridors that occur in the 

planning area. Because formal designation of the migration corridor was not analyzed in the Draft EIS, 

BLM is unable to include it in the alternatives in the final EIS. However, BLM plans to continue to 

protect this important resource and could take action after finalization of the RMP to process an 

amendment that would include the migration corridor, similar to the action that the USFS took in 

May 2008. 

Seasonal Stipulations, Wildlife Comments with Multiple Species 

Comment: Page 3-116 Table 3-32 Big Game Population Status: 

“Pronghorn seasonal use areas are shown on Map 3-15. The Sublette pronghorn herd unit encompasses 

10,546 mi2. The majority of the planning area falls within this large area. The herd unit is managed for a 

postseason population objective of 48,000 pronghorn. An estimated population of 49,500 was present in 

1999, with a 5-year average (1994–1999) of 43,260 (WGFD 1999). Pronghorn are predominantly 

associated with low, rolling terrain supporting open grassland and sagebrush communities. Summer and 

winter habitat is present throughout the planning area. 

Current Mule Deer population of the Sublette and Wyoming Range Herds are 55,213. Population trend is 

stable to up and the objective is 82,000 deer. 

Elk Population totals from 4 herd units is 8807 Elk. Population trend is stable or up and the objective is 

7924 elk. 

Moose population totals 3926. Population trend is up and the objective is 5500 animals” 

Comment - All population trends are stable or up for big game animals. Clearly, no new measures are 

necessary to protect big game species since existing practices have proved successful. 

Page 3-119 “BLM defines Sensitive Species as species that could easily become endangered or extinct in 

a state unless protection is granted.” Comment - The greater sage-grouse is hunted in Wyoming and 

would be more appropriately discussed under the Game Birds section. It is illogical for this species to be 

both hunted and classified as a Special Status Wildlife Species. On page 3-123 under the BLM Sensitive 

Wildlife Species section, it is stated “Greater sage-grouse are the most numerous and widespread game 

bird within the planning area...” [Emphasis added] The current management model for these birds is 

nothing short of contradictory. 

Page 3-120 Furbearers Comment - Although no longer trapped in Wyoming, the Canada lynx is a longstanding and historic example of a furbearer and should be mentioned in the Furbearer Section, even 

though discussed in the Special Status Wildlife Species section.

Response: The data in the table represents the population trends of the entire Herd Unit, which should not 

be confused with the local population effects. The impacts of the PAPA or the Jonah developments may 

not translate into the Herd Unit population trends immediately. Furthermore, just because a Herd Unit is 

stable does not mean the local population is stable. The Canada lynx is a federally listed species protected 

under the Endangered Species Act; it is inappropriate to discuss management of this species under the 

furbearing section. Despite the fact that greater sage-grouse are still hunted under WGFD regulations and 

are the most numerous and widespread game bird within the planning area, numerous studies and 

nationwide studies have documented large scale historic declines. This is why BLM has designated this 

species as sensitive and why the Governor of Wyoming is putting tremendous effort into managing this 

species.

A27-628 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: Pygmy Rabbit: While acknowledging the pygmy rabbit is in decline throughout the West, the 

RMP fails to describe current populations or the habitats required by pygmy rabbits. It has not described 

past management actions that have resulted in this decline and offered corrective actions to restore pygmy 

rabbits in the Pinedale Resource Area. Welch (2004, in press) reports his research in which he walked 300 

miles in pygmy rabbit habitat, covering areas where pygmy rabbits were previously reported. In 37 stands 

of big sagebrush in northern Utah, he found 11 pygmy rabbits, with 8 occurring in a single stand of 

sagebrush. Out of 11 sites previously reported as supporting pygmy rabbits, he found no signs of 

occupancy with only four sites now having suitable habitat. 

Suitable habitat consisted of big sagebrush with ≥ 20% canopy cover and ≥ 22 inches in 

height. He reported on significant deterioration and loss of habitat for pygmy rabbits through conversion 

of sagebrush stands to agriculture and treatments designed to improve forage conditions for livestock by 

reducing sagebrush cover. In his literature review, he provides some additional parameters describing 

wintering habitat for pygmy rabbits. The research showed the areas of highest winter use were in basin 

big sagebrush with canopy cover of 51%, compared to areas with moderate use having 42.7% canopy and 

low use in 38.6% canopy. Diets consist of 99% sagebrush in winter and 51% during summer with the 

remainder being herbaceous vegetation. 

DOI (2001) summarizes additional diet characteristics for pygmy rabbits. In particular, they were reported 

to rely on 39% grasses such as native Agropyron species and 10% forbs. Other characteristics described 

in both references include descriptions of soil conditions amenable to burrowing, such as deep soils. The 

RMP must research pygmy rabbit habitat requirements and map potential pygmy rabbit habitat, describe 

its current condition and the causes of that condition. Then, the RMP must provide numeric criteria 

describing desired conditions of this habitat and place it off limits to surface disturbing activities or 

surface occupancy and limit livestock grazing by setting conservative utilization levels, providing rest to 

restore grasses and forbs needed to provide the necessary herbaceous forage during spring, summer and 

fall, and not impose the minimal sagebrush cover guidelines it has cited for sage grouse. 

Northern Goshawk: While noting that goshawk occur in undisturbed forest areas, the RMP places all 

timber producing areas into active production without considering goshawk or providing criteria to ensure 

its habitat remains structurally and functionally viable. BLM must review the relevant science for 

goshawk and provide sufficient criteria for forested habitats to ensure available forage for goshawk prey 

and habitat for goshawk such as the Forest Service research described in Reynolds et al (1992) , which is 

the adopted guidance for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in its Utah Northern Goshawk Project 

Environmental Assessment (USDA 1999) and its Decision Notice (USDA 2001) . This guidance allows 

only an average of 20% utilization of herbaceous forage species, with no place receiving greater than 40% 

use in the entire goshawk home range which is 6,000 acres. Structural classes of trees and understory are 

specified so that timber harvest leaves the required amounts in each of several size classes. This guidance 

also stresses the importance of maintaining mycorrhizal fungi function in these home ranges. If BLM is to 

achieve its stated objective for maintaining goshawk populations, it must adopt criteria reflecting the 

habitat and forage base for goshawk and integrate those into its grazing and timber guidance. 

Other Fish and Wildlife Habitat: The RMP relies on much general language as its criteria for meeting 

habitat objectives, but ignores its FLPMA mandate for accelerating restoration. It does this by relying on 

collaboration in the absence of criteria, presuming somehow that deferring to the Wyoming Standards for 

Rangeland Health or PFC assessments for streams will do that. Rangeland health assessments are nonquantitative and subject to great bias by selecting non-representative areas for assessment, not comparing 

conditions to potential or reference sites and not assessing the current condition of the site. The RMP is 

relying on Rangeland Health assessments as its monitoring and control of livestock grazing as well as 

mined land or other surface disturbed land reclamation activities. This is a flawed strategy as documented 

Pinedale RMP A27-629 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

in the Interagency Technical Reference which is used for rangeland health assessment. The document 

describes its intended applications and specifically states it is NOT to be used to: 

• Identify the cause of resource problems 

• Make grazing and other management decisions 

• Monitor land or determine trend 

• Independently generate national or regional assessments of rangeland health. 

This is a qualitative, not quantitative approach and as such is subject to bias. Where are the ecological site 

inventories, the trend studies, the similarity indices needed to judge condition of the plant communities 

relative to reference conditions? The technical reference indicates these are needed. The RMP claims that, 

of the streams in the Resource Area, only 1% are Non-Functional. There is no data or analysis showing 

the current habitat conditions for fish and wildlife in these stream and riparian systems, nor adequate 

standards for restoring fish habitat including bank condition (undercut banks, eroding banks, bank 

trampling and others), nor instream habitats (instream cover, canopy, overhanging vegetation). This total 

reliance on PFC is flawed because PFC assessments do not account for fish and wildlife habitat condition. 

Even BLM’s own technical manual states that “Trout habitat conditions would be optimum from midseral to late seral. The threshold for any goal is at least PFC because any rating below this would not be 

sustainable.” (emphasis added). That manual illustrates where the PFC state is in relation to habitat for 

fish. The figures clearly illustrate that at PFC, fish habitat lacks needed structural attributes such as 

undercut banks, overhanging vegetation and canopy cover. Such habitat components as those needed for 

CRCT and other native fish should be the minimum standards required for management activities across 

the planning area.

Response: The management decisions in the draft EIS do not place timber producing areas into active 

production, but rather serve to manage timber stands to return them to their historic range of variability 

with emphasis on old growth and forest health. BLM has incorporated northern goshawk management 

guidelines to the extent practicable given BLM’s requirement to manage multiple resources and resource 

uses. As further northern goshawk research is conducted, BLM will incorporate results of this research 

into the management of the planning area. All relevant and available literature was reviewed and 

considered in development of the draft EIS. 

The RMP is a broad-based, land use document that makes land allocation decisions and, as such, uses 

qualitative approaches to analyze impacts resulting from the various alternatives. Specific decisions on 

management of livestock grazing and monitoring of grazing allotments will be made at the allotment 

management level. No RMP-level grazing management decision could be appropriate for all grazing 

allotments and habitat types. Stream functionality is a physical characteristic determined by site, 

topography, geology, and climate, not wildlife habitat needs. The Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) 

manual also makes clear that not all stream systems have the capability to provide trout habitat. PFC is 

used as a management goal because physical stability of stream systems is required as a base before other 

site-specific management objectives can be met. Site-specific management objectives for fish and wildlife 

habitat would be developed at the project level through habitat management of allotment management 

plans.

Comment: Powerline towers are likely to concentrate raptor nesting and perching activities, to the 

potential detriment of prey species. Transmission towers may be particularly attractive as nest sites for 

ravens, and Steenhof et al. (1993) reported that 133 pairs of ravens had colonized transmission towers on 

a single stretch of powerline in Idaho during its first 10 years of existence. Gilmer and Wiehe (1977) 

found that nest success for ferruginous hawks was slightly lower for transmission towers than other nest 

sites, and noted that high winds sometimes blew tower nests away. Steenhof et al. (1993) also found that 

transmission tower nests tended to be blown down, but found that nest success was not lower on towers 

A27-630 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

for ferruginous hawks and was significantly higher on towers for golden eagles. In North Dakota, Gilmer 

and Stewart (1983) found that ferruginous hawk nest success was highest for powerline towers and lowest 

for nests in hardwood trees. Thus, although powerlines can be designed to minimize impacts to raptors, 

these corridors should be sited more than 2 miles away from prairie dog colonies and sage grouse leks to 

prevent major impacts to these sensitive prey species.

Response: BLM has followed the recommendations of USFWS in providing stipulations for placement of 

facilities in or near prairie dog habitats. Similarly, BLM will comply with the WAFWA MOU to conserve 

the greater sage-grouse and its habitat.

Comment: We find the current federal and state management of our wildlife resources to be reactive, 

with no clear plans to maintain, improve or restore habitats so vital to the future of our wildlife 

populations. Accordingly, we insist that the following corrective actions be considered and implemented: 

1. The compounding effects of drought, oil and gas leasing, development and production, the 

reintroduction of wolves, and the increases in. human population should be recognized, analyzed and 

quantified as they impact our big game, upland game and non-game species. Mitigation measures should 

be required and based on science, not politics.

Response: Many of these issues have been recognized and analyzed in Chapter 3, 4 and the Cumulative 

Impacts section. We acknowledge in the impacts analysis that there are impacts to the animals from these 

stresses, but we cannot determine at this time what the population impacts will be.

Comment: PAGE: CHANGE: ACTIVITIES DISRUPTIVE TO WILDLIFE - The physical presence, 

sounds and movements of people and their activities that are likely to cause displacement of or excessive 

stress to wildlife during critical life stages or during periods of severe winter weather conditions. 

Components of activities disruptive to wildlife may include noise, traffic, or human presence regardless of 

the purpose of the activity. Activities of concern are generally those that are threatening or harassing to 

wildlife but may be activities that are of a duration or intensity that results in individuals leaving areas of 

critical habitat area for less suitable habitat (i.e. birthing, nesting or winter habitat) for an extended time 

period or that interfere with critical life stages (i.e. noise disruption of sage-grouse breeding activities). 

Temporal or spatial restrictions can be placed on these activities. This definition is not intended to apply 

to nonthreatening and non-harassing activities such as, but not limited to, land surveys, cultural site 

investigations or fence maintenance activities that occur outside critical life stage periods. 

EXPLANATION: Definition added to replace SURFACE (HUMAN) DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITY, per R. 

Taylor’s Report, Response to Draft Definition of Disruptive Activity as Found in the draft Rawlins 

Resource Management Plan (November 9, 2006). See SURFACE (HUMAN) DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITY 

(below)

Response: The definition is appropriate as given in the draft EIS.

Comment: The seasonal wildlife stipulations contained in Appendix 12 are somewhat confusing, because 

although Alternative 3 of the DEIS is touted as the conservation alternative, in several instances the 

protections provided in Alternative 3 are weaker than those provided in Alternative 4. For instance, elk 

feed grounds, sage-grouse winter habitat and other raptor nest protections are not even provided in 

Alternative 3. Additionally, Alternative 3 does not provide protections for mountain plover nests and 

burrowing owl nests in large block NSO areas, while Alternative 4 does. In no instance we could find is a 

seasonal stipulation in Alternative 3 more protective than the comparable stipulation in Alternative 4. 

These differences between the two alternatives, however, are not the only areas of concern. We deplore 

the proposed lifting of seasonal wildlife stipulations from areas where oil and gas drilling will occur. For 

big game crucial winter range under Alternative 3 the seasonal stipulation will only apply in Intensively 

Pinedale RMP A27-631 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Developed Areas. The implication of this is that in all other management areas there will be no seasonal 

wildlife stipulation for big game crucial winter range. The seasonal stipulation for sage-grouse leks is 

applicable only in Minimally Developed and Unavailable Areas, implying that in all other management 

areas (such as Intensively Developed Areas) there will be no seasonal stipulation for sage-grouse leks. We 

applaud Alternative 3’s 3-mile buffer for sage-grouse nesting habitat, but again question why it applies 

only in Minimally Developed and Unavailable Areas, areas where disturbance should already be less 

intensive. There are other examples of these types of odd applications of seasonal wildlife stipulations, 

but suffice it to say that Appendix 12 must be rewritten to provide adequate and meaningful seasonal 

wildlife stipulations in conformance with WGFD recommendations. The WGFD recommendations 

should be the starting point for designing stipulations, since recent studies have unequivocally shown that 

even these are not preventing degradation of our wildlife populations.

Response: Appendix 12 shows seasonal wildlife stipulations. There are fewer seasonal restrictions under 

Alternative 3 because oil and gas leasing would be unavailable or subject to major constraints across most 

of the planning area. The management actions in Alternative 3 provide protections for raptors. Under 

Alternative 3, surface occupancy would be prohibited within 1,000 feet of active raptor nests (including 

burrowing owls). For big game crucial winter range, the seasonal stipulation would apply to only the 

Intensively Developed Area because within the other oil and gas management areas, surface occupancy 

would be prohibited. Seasonal restrictions do not protect wildlife habitats because the activities postponed 

are carried out in the next noncrucial season. When development reaches a density or other point at which 

animals no longer use the habitats, seasonal restrictions do not provide any value. The 3-mile buffer for 

sage-grouse nesting habitat cannot be applied in the Intensively Developed Area. Because of this area’s 

density of expected development, this restriction would not be feasible.

Comment: Sound ecological protection for a landscape with its vegetation, wildlife, water and other 

ecological resources must be developed at the landscape scale. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(2007) explains “A landscape approach is essential to plan and mitigate large-scale energy developments, 

because impacts from such developments are not limited to the actual project area”. The importance and 

complexity of using the best available science to plan at the landscape scale has been recognized by many 

scientists (Szaro et al. 2005, Noss 2007). Many ecological functions such as the seasonal migrations of 

wildlife, connectivity required to prevent genetic isolation, and natural disturbances affecting wildlife 

habitat occur across broad landscapes. Consequently, decision making about the use and conservation of 

natural resources needs to be made at the landscape scale. The RMP should use the full set of guidelines 

from Wyoming Game and Fish Department (2007) as a model for identifying and assessing the impacts 

of oil and gas on wildlife at a landscape level. 

Unfortunately, many decisions about protecting habitat and wildlife are not made at the landscape scale in 

the Preferred Alternative or the conservation oriented Alternative 3. Exceptions to wildlife timing 

stipulations, exceptions to NSO, conversions from “Large Block NSO” or “Unavailable Areas” to 

“Intensively Developed Field” may be made on a case-by-case basis - future situations not designed to 

take into account the indirect and cumulative impacts across a landscape. Management decisions about oil 

and gas development as it affects wildlife (and other natural resources) must be made at the landscape 

level looking across the entire Pinedale Resource Area and considering implications on adjacent lands as 

well. Indeed, the RMP revision is the ideal time to make such management decisions.

Response: The RMP provides the framework for managing the planning area at the landscape scale. It is 

not possible to predict all possible management scenarios in the RMP. Some decisions must be made 

case-by-case, following the framework provided by the RMP.

A27-632 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: 3. We advocate a study to determine how special habitats such as blue heron rookeries, 

trumpeter swan nesting areas, elk and antelope migration areas will be impacted or protected from the 

activity.

Response: Some of these studies are currently underway.

Comment: The proposed “adaptive management” approach to managing wildlife does not work. The 

only way you know your performance standard has not been met is if the wildlife is gone or decreasing.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: Several wildlife studies have been conducted in the Pinedale area since 2000 and have found 

the population of mule deer in the Sublette Herd Unit has steadily declined between 2002 and 2005-2006 

(Sawyer et. al, 2005); the Sublette Herd Unit moose post season population also has declined from 1999 

to 2005 (WGFD); and, the male counts on sage grouse leks that were heavily impacted by gas wells also 

declined from one year prior to well development (Holloran, 2005). It is unclear from the analysis in the 

Draft EIS, whether the proposed resource management plan of “intensely developed”, “minimally 

developed”, “large block NSO” and “areas unavailable to leasing”, will be protective enough to ensure 

BLM’s goal of “maintaining functioning big game habitats and migration corridors that allow free 

movement and use of habitats.” EPA recommends the Draft EIS include more information on the 

anticipated impacts to wildlife.

Response: The impact analysis has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: Pages 4-181 – 189 Wildlife and Fish Habitat and Assumptions: Comment - There is a great 

inconsistency in assessing the value or impact of vegetation disturbances within this section of the 

document. On pages 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, and 4-185, the impacts of vegetation disturbance are 

described as negative (fragmentation, loss of species diversity, and suitable for generalist species only). 

On pages 4-182, 4-189, and 4-90, however, the effects of vegetation disturbance are described as positive 

(habitat mosaics, increase of habitat values and species diversity, and suitable for use by early seral 

species). BLM’s reasoning is flawed. On one hand it is stated that habitat fragmentation should be 

avoided; while on the other hand, it is necessary to fragment the habitat in order to create mosaics. We 

question the judgment that vegetative changes brought about by timber cutting and fire are positive, while 

comparable changes brought about by oil and gas operations are negative. Such a presentation reflects a 

highly selective and negative bias against oil and gas operations and a determined differential application 

of ecological principles. 

While the reduction of sagebrush habitats is likely to have negative effects on sagebrush obligate species, 

such disruptions will have positive effects on wildlife species that require more open or mixed 

sagebrush/herbaceous habitats. Habitat modification in itself is not necessarily negative. It is a wellaccepted ecological principle that alterations in habitats, including those produced by biotic succession, 

will make such habitats less suitable for some species while simultaneously making them more suitable 

for other species (Odum 1971, Smith 1974). What is overlooked in this analysis is the fact there will be 

beneficial effects to non-sagebrush obligates that accrue from the reduction of sagebrush habitats. Prairie 

dogs, ground squirrels, burrowing owls, grassland birds (including mountain plovers), and most medium 

to small mammal species will all benefit from the opening up of the sagebrush monoculture. Also, the 

prey base for raptor species is likely to be increased by opening sagebrush habitat. BLM must reconcile 

these different needs in a logical manner. 

Pinedale RMP A27-633 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Page 4-185 “Disturbance may contribute to reduced reproductive rates due to reduced feeding, feeding in 

poor quality habitats, or feeding on rough forage (Gillin and Irwin 1985). Research conducted by Gillin 

and Irwin (1985) in the Bridger-Teton National Forest found seismic activity caused displacement of elk 

within home ranges by an average of three-quarters of a mile and into dense (greater than 70% canopy) 

forests with reduced forage. Displacement was observed to be rapid on spring range when calves were 

less than 1 month of age. Oil and gas exploration and field development in the Riley Ridge Project area 

was found to change elk distribution after drilling 1 well; after 3 wells were drilled, elk abandoned 6,000 

acres of winter range. After drilling ceased, elk returned to the area. Further drilling activities in elk 

calving areas also caused elk to temporarily abandon the Lake Ridge calving area. Elk abandoned the 

Snider Basin calving area in 1984 and returned a year later when drilling activity left the basin. Elk have 

until now been able to find suitable undisturbed habitats away from human activity; however, continued 

development could lead to abandonment of historic ranges (in the last native winter foraging area on the 

Wyoming Range) (Johnson 1985). A study conducted by Hayden-Wing Associates (1990) found a similar 

response in the Graphite Hollow/Rock Creek Winter Range where elk moved 0.5 to 2.4 miles away from 

a well site.”

Response: The impacts of planned vegetation treatments and industrial development are fundamentally 

different. Vegetation treatment projects are designed to achieve preferred outcomes and are conducted 

during the ideal season, with post-treatment management and no lingering human presence or continuing 

disturbance. Industrial development, on the other hand, is designed to provide industrial access, 

continuous human presence and use, and long-term, continuing disturbance. The argument set forth in this 

comment is comparing native ecosystem function and human created manipulations. In addition, 

sacrificing sagebrush obligate species with the justification that prairie species will take over is 

irresponsible. The beauty of a true landscape mosaic is that it is self-containing and naturally contains 

habitats for sagebrush obligates, grassland prairie obligates, and forest obligates, to name a few. Humans 

cannot create these systems better than Mother Nature, and bringing more anthropogenic features into the 

landscape only creates a situation of further manipulations.

Comment: The next subject, the map section of the appendixes. It seems that almost every map that’s in 

there, but particularly the wildlife maps, include private property in the delineation of winter rangesm 

crucial habitats, and I think that’s wrong. I don’t know how the delineation was made, but it looks to me 

like they had to trespass to get those sort of ideas that that was with critical habitat. Just guessing, is that 

critical habitat across the fence is not real analysis because if they didn’t go in right on the property and 

understand that then how can they can delineate it on a map. So I think it’s wrong that private properties 

are included in any of the maps.

Response: The techniques WGFD employed to gain information about big game seasonal habitat use 

include aerial observations in addition to ground surveys.

Comment: The following objectives are necessary to propagate Sublette County wildlife populations as 

we have known them in the recent past. They include the following: 

1. Crucial wildlife habitats should be protected through Best Management Practices: 

a. Mule deer, pronghom antelope and sage grouse crucial winter ranges and, 

b. Sage grouse breeding, nesting and brood rearing habitats.

Response: This is the primary reason for having areas designated unavailable for leasing, as well as No 

Surface Occupancy. BMPs are being employed in the intensively developed areas; however, there is still 

loss of crucial winter ranges and other seasonal habitats. Please see Appendix 5.

A27-634 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: We find the current federal and state management of our wildlife resources to be reactive, 

with no clear plans to maintain, improve or restore habitats so vital to the future of our wildlife 

populations. Accordingly, we insist that the following corrective actions be considered and implemented: 

6. Exceptions to seasonal closures should be based on sound science, including but not limited to: 

• Habitat conditions 

• Forage availability 

• Limiting factors such as predators, snow depth, and temperature and wind chill. 

• Animal abundance 

• Historical records of animal density and extensive field checks prior to authorization. 

• Habitat potential 

• Presence of similar disturbances and the expected animal response.

Response: Please see Appendix 8. These factors are to be taken into consideration when evaluating 

whether an exception should be granted or denied.

Comment: Chapter 2 Page 162 Commentor WGFD Alternative summary table list raptor, sage grouse, 

and big game but does NOT list the timing restriction for Cutthroat trout protection (June 1 -August 15)

Response: The CRCT timing restrictions have been added to the summary table—Table 2-25.

Comment: I am against the leasing of our federal lands in the Bridger Teton forest for many reasons. 

This is crucial habitat for mule deer populations which have been declining since the proliferation of 

wells in and around the Riley ridge. Also current studies in the last month conducted on sage grouse show 

a steady decline in populations due to destruction of the sage environment. Many interested hunting and 

fishing groups are quick to point out the destruction that will occur if further leasing is allowed.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to make leasing decisions on Bridger-Teton National Forest 

lands.

Comment: The proposed prohibitions on exceptions to seasonal stipulations in minimally developed 

areas would deprive the BLM of the flexibility it requires. The BLM should not unreasonably limit its 

future management actions by prohibiting exceptions and modifications when the circumstances warrant. 

Further, although the BLM intends to deny exception requests in “source habitat” under this alternative, 

the BLM does not define or map source habitats. Without such information, EOG cannot determine how 

the prohibition on exceptions may impact its future operations in the Pinedale Resource Area.

Response: BLM analyzed an appropriate range of alternatives. BLM and WGFD are currently mapping 

these source habitats and the record of decision will be updated upon its completion and will be available 

for future EOG planning efforts. 

Comment: This RMP presents its proposals without acknowledging the heavy development of the past 

decade where large and important habitats and wildlife such as mule deer and sage grouse have been 

negatively impacted. Nor does it acknowledge the heavy socio-economic costs and benefits of 

development already in place, and likely in the future. During that process many negative impacts to fish 

and wildlife habitats and populations have been observed that are likely to expand using the same 

approaches to minimal management of the development process by BLM. We support the use of sciencebased adaptive management to monitor development, assess impacts and provide a structured way to 

make adjustments to lessen impacts. This will require BLM to exercise active management of the 

development process to balance resource values in ways that have not been done to date in the Pinedale 

area. 

Pinedale RMP A27-635 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Response: Please see environmental consequences to wildlife pages 4-180 through 4-212 and the 

Cumulative Impacts to Wildlife and Fish Habitat pages 4-254 through 4-256.

Comment: Make the conservation of sagebrush ecosystems a priority. This quickly disappearing 

ecosystem contains crucial habitat for some of the largest migratory populations of ungulates in North 

America and offers the best chance for survival of healthy populations of Greater Sage-Grouse and other 

sagebrush obligate species. Population and distribution of wildlife are declining due to habitat 

fragmentation and declining quality of habitat generally associated with oil and gas development (Knick 

et al. 2003). Given the ongoing and rapid development of new roads and infrastructure from oil and gas 

development, BLM is now at a critical juncture in deciding the long-term fate of sagebrush ecosystems in 

the West. Wildlife at a Crossroads: Energy Development in Western Wyoming (Thomson et al. 2005). 

highlights both the existing negative impacts on wildlife and the risk of even more damage in the Upper 

Green River Valley, while proposing solutions for sensibly managing oil and gas development.

Response: This point is the primary reason for having areas designated unavailable for leasing as well as 

No Surface Occupancy. The management of sagebrush steppe ecosystems has been reanalyzed in the 

fuels section for the same reason. 

Comment: • For forestry issues, consider including wildlife objectives under the management objectives 

especially in reference to management of migration corridors, transitional habitat uses, big game 

parturition areas, etc. Again, thinking in terms of cumulative impacts and landscape conservation scale, 

forestry issues other than fire and fuel reduction should be considered.

Response: Wildlife objectives are included in the wildlife management section and apply to all habitats, 

including forested areas.

Comment: Environmental Consequences and Cumulative Impacts: Page 4-1 clearly states that, “the 

analysis of environmental consequences is focused on identifying the types of impacts anticipated to 

occur and estimating their potential intensity.” In my opinion the DEIS fails to do this because it does not 

present an adequate discussion of baseline conditions in the affected environment section and does not 

use existing scientific literature or other research to estimate impacts. Thus the DEIS has failed to take a 

“hard look” at impacts to big game animals from proposed alternatives which violates the intent of 

NEPA. The very fact that the RMP/DEIS ignores some of the more significant findings of Sawyer et al. 

(2005 and 2006) from scientifically credible, site-specific studies, verifies my conclusion that the BLM 

has failed to take the required “hard look” at impacts that have resulted from current management and that 

will like result from implementation of any of the alternatives considered.

Response: These site-specific studies were discussed in Chapter 4, page 4-185; however, due to the level 

of impacts already incurred in the intensively developed fields, a decision was made to continue the pace 

of development in these areas and protect the habitats outside of these fields to prevent further impacts 

from occurring to these populations.

Comment: In the Pinedale Field Office, WGFD Species of Special Concern include Colorado River 

cutthroat trout, water vole, wolverine, river otter, harlequin duck, merlin, Artic peregrine falcon, 

Forester’s tern, black tern, northern pygmy owl, great grey owl, boreal owl, Lewis’ woodpecker, threetoed woodpecker, and golden-crowned kinglet. (There may be other such species in the planning area not 

included in this list.) The BLM also has selected several wildlife species for inclusion as BLM Sensitive 

Species: greater sage-grouse, long-earred myotis, pygmy rabbit, white-tailed prairie dog, Idaho pocket 

gopher, white-faced ibis, trumpeter swan, northern goshawk, ferruginous hawk, American peregrine 

falcon, long-billed curlew, burrowing owl, sage thrasher, loggershead shrike, Brewer’s sparrow, sage 

sparrow, western boreal toad, and northern leopard frog. WGFD (1998) has set forth recommendations 

A27-636 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

for allowing habitat-disturbing activities and mitigation for these activities if allowed. Federal Candidate 

Species and Native Species Status 1 and 2 receive a mitigation category of “Vital,” for which habitat 

directly limits populations and restoration may be impossible; habitat function must be maintained if 

habitat modification is allowed to occur. Big game crucial winter range, sage grouse habitats of all types, 

raptor nest sites, and habitats of status 1 and 2 native species are classified as “Vital.” Native Species 

Status 3 receive a mitigation category of “High,” for which WGFD recommends no net loss of habitat 

function through enhancement of degraded habitat when a habitat disturbing project is proposed. Big 

game parturition areas, riparian habitats, and habitats of status 3 nongame are considered “High Value” 

under the “High” reclamation classification. Furthermore, for Endangered or Threatened Species, such as 

the gray wolf and bald eagle, WGFD recommends exclusion of any habitat-impacting activity. For these 

species, “The Commission recognizes that some wildlife or wildlife habitats are so rare, complex and/or 

fragile that mitigation options are not available. Total exclusion of adverse impacts is all that will ensure 

preservation of these irreplaceable habitats” (Ibid., p. 4). We concur wholeheartedly, and point out remind 

BLM that FLPMA carries a legal requirement for the BLM to manage its lands in accord with state 

directives such as the WGFD Mitigation Policy. We have grave concerns that the revised RMP as 

proposed in the DEIS will not meet this legal mandate and we therefore request that the FEIS include 

greater and mandatory protections for wildlife and wildlife habitat in accordance with WGFD 

recommendations. 

Response: The RMP provides for protection of sensitive and important wildlife habitats, and reclamation 

of disturbed habitats. BLM also has responsibilities to manage other resources and provide for lease rights 

and permitted uses. Management objectives to reclaim disturbances, avoid or mitigate disturbances in 

sensitive habitats, and meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands should provide for most 

wildlife habitat needs, over the long term and on a landscape scale. 

Comment: Page: 2-149, Section: NSO, Recommended Change: Delete Large NSO and designate specific 

sites based on legally appropriate NSO criteria; Alternatively Withdraw area Explanation: NSO leases 

over the broad area are a de facto withdrawal. 

Response: The Large Block NSO designation has been eliminated from the Final EIS. BLM is not 

effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP. 

Biological Assessment (BA), Threatened, Endangered (T&E), and Special 

Status Species (SSS) 

Comment: The Bureau’s draft BA states: “BLM would develop and implement performance-based 

objectives and operating standards that would provide the appropriate flexibility to adapt management 

decisions to changing and uncertain environmental conditions on the ground while ensuring appropriate 

mitigations. The performance-based objectives and standards, which are presented in Appendix 3, provide 

setbacks, consultation, guidance, and limitations on all aspects of oil and gas related activities.” 

The Services believes that it is unclear, from reading this text in combination with the text in the DEIS, 

whether BLM will or will not apply a performance-based approach to listed species stipulations. If the 

BLM will apply a performance-based approach to listed species, then the programmatic BAs and BOs are 

not applicable to this RMP and adequate “committed to” protective measures will need to be developed 

prior to any concurrence from the Service for the determinations made by the Bureau in their BA for the 

Pinedale RMP. Consulting on “flexible” stipulations for threatened and endangered species would lead to 

different effects determinations than what are now present in the programmatic BAs and BOs.

Response: These statements have been deleted from the BA.

Pinedale RMP A27-637 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Comment: The draft BA states “listed threatened and endangered species and Special Status Species 

management can be addressed in four primary ways”. However, only three ways are listed under this 

statement. The Service suggests correcting this inconsistency. 

Response: The BA has been changed to state “three primary ways”.

Comment: The draft BA states “these protective measures will be implemented in individual species BAs 

for the State of Wyoming”. The Service believes that this statement appears to claim that the Wyoming 

State Government was involved in the development of those BAs. It is our understanding that this was not 

the case and, therefore, the Bureau may want to clarify this statement, as appropriate. Also, the Bureau 

may wish to re-evaluate the use of the word “implemented” in the Bureau’s statement above.

Response: The BA has been updated.

Comment: The draft BA states “if avoidance is not possible, informal consultation with the USFWS 

would be initiated.” The Service believes that this statement may more appropriately read, “informal or 

formal consultation with the USFWS will be initiated for site-specific projects which may affect listed 

species.” 

Response: The BA has been updated.

Comment: Many of the conservation measures presented on pages 92-108 of the draft BA are different 

from those conservation measures from the programmatic BAs and BOs. The Service suggests that the 

Bureau review the conservation measures presented in the draft BA for the RMP to ensure that they are 

identical to, or more restrictive than, those agreed upon as part of the statewide programmatic BAs and 

BOs, as appropriate.

Response: The conservation measures have been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: Draft BA, Page 2: The Bureau’s draft BA states: “BLM would develop and implement 

performance-based objectives and operating standards that would provide the appropriate flexibility to 

adapt management decisions to changing and uncertain environmental conditions on the ground while 

ensuring appropriate mitigations. The performance-based objectives and standards, which are presented in 

Appendix 3, provide setbacks, consultation, guidance, and limitations on all aspects of oil and gas related 

activities.” 

The Services believes that it is unclear, from reading this text in combination with the text in the DEIS, 

whether BLM will or will not apply a performance-based approach to listed species stipulations. If the 

BLM will apply a performance-based approach to listed species, then the programmatic BAs and BOs are 

not applicable to this RMP and adequate “committed to” protective measures will need to be developed 

prior to any concurrence from the Service for the determinations made by the Bureau in their BA for the 

Pinedale RMP. Consulting on “flexible” stipulations for threatened and endangered species would lead to 

different effects determinations than what are now present in the programmatic BAs and BOs.

Response: These statements have been deleted from the BA.

Comment: Draft BA, Page 44, Line 13: The draft BA states “these protective measures will be 

implemented in individual species BAs for the State of Wyoming”. The Service believes that this 

statement appears to claim that the Wyoming State Government was involved in the development of those 

BAs. It is our understanding that this was not the case and, therefore, the Bureau may want to clarify this 

A27-638 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

statement, as appropriate. Also, the Bureau may wish to re-evaluate the use of the word “implemented” in 

the Bureau’s statement above.

Response: The text refers to the statewide programmatic BAs completed for species that occur on BLMadministered public lands. The text has been revised in the BA. 

Comment: 4. The Service realizes that the Bureau is currently continuing to prepare a BA which will 

analyze the impacts to threatened and endangered species from implementation of the Pinedale RMP 

revision. The Service suggests that coordination be continued between the Bureau and the Service until a 

final BA has been completed by the Bureau and the Service has determined that it has received all 

information necessary to complete a Biological Opinion (BO) pursuant to section 7 of the Act.

Response: BLM plans on continuing coordination with USFWS in the fashion stated by the commenter.

Comment: 5.) The Gray Wolf should not be granted any habitat related stipulations. The non-essential, 

experimental status of the wolf means that US Fish & Wildlife Service consultation is not needed on this 

species, and no habitat protections are warranted.

Response: Wolves designated as nonessential experimental that are not within units of the National Park 

or National Wildlife Refuge systems but are within the boundaries of the nonessential experimental 

population area are treated as proposed species for Section 7 consultation purposes. Management 

direction provided in 50 CFR Part 17 indicates that there are no conflicts envisioned with any current or 

anticipated management action by BLM or other federal agencies. The same CFR also states that 

management of wolves in the experimental population would not cause major changes to existing private 

or public land use restrictions. Land use restrictions on public lands could be used, however, to control 

human intrusion of den sites when fewer than six breeding pairs exist within the experimental area. Until 

the wolf is delisted, these conservation measures must still be implemented to comply with the ESA. 

After delisting, Wyoming will be required to manage wolf population above 10 breeding pairs and 100 

wolves in mid-winter, including maintaining some wolf breeding pairs in suitable habitat in northwestern 

Wyoming outside the National Parks. These areas may include BLM lands, which would still be 

subjected to the management guidance included in the RMP. BLM will refer to WGFD on how to manage 

gray wolf denning locations under the WGFD Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan.

Comment: 6. Some conservation measures and effects determinations included in the draft BA were not 

consistent with the Bureau’s Statewide Programmatic Species-Specific section 7 consultations 

(programmatic BAs and BOs) or Appendix 18 of the DEIS. The Service encourages the Bureau to review 

the programmatic BAs and BOs and revise the draft BA and Appendix 18 of the DEIS, if appropriate. 

Response: BLM will update this information in the final BA for the RMP.

Comment: The Bureau’s draft BA states “BLM PFO and contractor wildlife biologists, in coordination 

with the USFWS biologist, conducted an analysis regarding the effects of the DEIS preferred altemative 

on listed species.” This “in depth coordination approach” between the USFWS and BLM PFO and 

contractor wildlife biologists has not yet occurred for the analysis of effects for the DEIS preferred 

alternative for the Pinedale RMP. The Service suggests deleting or modifying this text, as appropriate. 

Response: This text has been deleted from the document.

Comment: We hereby request that the final environmental impact statement be revised to eliminate much 

of the discussion of protection for gray wolves. Although federal rules promulgated when wolves were 

Pinedale RMP A27-639 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park as a non-essential experimental population promised that no 

federal land use restrictions would be needed outside the national parks to protect wolves, the draft 

Pinedale Resource Management Plan environmental impact statement seems to reneg on that 

commitment. 

The EIS calls for wolf conservation measures, including: “No project actions are to be located within 330 

feet of den sites between April 1 and June 30. Areas within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of a den site are 

recommended for protection from disturbance.” But the wolf reintroduction rule (which is still in effect) 

was specific in stating: “When six or more breeding pairs are established in an experimental population 

area, no land-use restrictions may be employed outside of national parks or national wildlife refuges, 

unless wolf populations fail to maintain positive growth rates toward population recovery levels for two 

consecutive years. If such a situation arose, state and tribal agencies would identify, recommend, and 

implement corrective management actions within one year, possibly including appropriate land-use 

restrictions to promote growth of the wolf population.” But federal wildlife officials report that the wolf 

population continues to grow beyond recovery goals. 

Protection of wolf denning and rendezvous sites was debated years ago, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service rejecting calls to implement more land use restrictions to protect wolves. The agency stated in its 

rulemaking: “Wolves are adaptable to a wide variety of human activities, except for deliberate killing. 

Experiences in North America indicate that human disturbance, even around active den sites, is not a 

significant factor affecting wolf survival or population growth. The rule protects active wolf dens during 

the earliest stages of wolf recovery, if necessary. Killing wolves is illegal except for a very few limited 

exceptions. The rule allows flexibility to reconsider land use restrictions if wolf populations do not grow 

toward recovery levels. Wolves in Montana have not needed land-use restrictions and, at this time, landuse restrictions do not appear necessary for wolf populations to recover in Idaho or Wyoming.” 

In fact, the EIS for wolf reintroduction acknowledged that high density livestock grazing and wolves are 

incompatible. The current US Fish and Wildlife wolf delisting proposal would remove all protections for 

grey wolves on all BLM lands within the Pinedale RMP Area. Because the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the State of Wyoming do not currently support the protection of wolves on any BLM lands in 

Sublette County, this RMP proposal to provide protection to wolves places the BLM at odds with all 

other relevant wildlife management agencies. This conflict will produce no good result. Please withdraw 

all references to protections for wolves in the Pinedale RMP.

Response: Wolves designated as nonessential experimental that are not within units of the National Park 

or National Wildlife Refuge systems but are within the boundaries of the nonessential experimental 

population area are treated as proposed species for Section 7 consultation purposes. Management 

direction provided in 50 CFR Part 17 indicates that there are no conflicts envisioned with any current or 

anticipated management action by BLM or other federal agencies. The same CFR also states that 

management of wolves in the experimental population would not cause major changes to existing private 

or public land use restrictions. Land use restrictions on public lands could be used, however, to control 

human intrusion of den sites when fewer than six breeding pairs exist within the experimental area. Until 

the wolf is delisted, these conservation measures must still be implemented to comply with the ESA. 

After delisting, Wyoming will be required to manage wolf population above 10 breeding pairs and 100 

wolves in mid-winter, including maintaining some wolf breeding pairs in suitable habitat in northwestern 

Wyoming outside the National Parks. These areas may include BLM lands, which would still be 

subjected to the management guidance included in the RMP. BLM will refer to WGFD on how to manage 

gray wolf denning locations under the WGFD Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan.

A27-640 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: Appendix 9 of the RMP DEIS acknowledges there are a number of aquatic species in the 

PRA classified as “Special Status Species.” These include the four endangered Colorado River fish 

species discussed previously, the Kendall Warm Springs dace, three species of native cutthroat trout, two 

chub species, two sucker species, and three amphibians. Several Special Status plant species (hoary 

willow) and bird species (e.g., yellow-billed cuckoo) are also associated with surface waters in the PRA. 

Unfortunately, the DEIS does not explain what it means to be classified as a “Special Status Species.” 

According to BLM Manual 6840.01: “The purpose of this Manual Section is to provide policy and 

guidance, consistent with appropriate laws, for the conservation of special status species of plants and 

animals, and the ecosystems upon which they depend. These are species which are proposed for listing, 

officially listed as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered 

under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA); those listed by a State in a category such as 

threatened or endangered implying potential endangerment or extinction; and those designated by each 

State Director as sensitive. Conservation in this section and pursuant to the ESA means the use of all 

methods and procedures which are necessary to improve the status of federally listed species and their 

habitats to a point where the provisions of the ESA are no longer necessary. Conservation of special status 

species means the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to improve the condition of 

special status species and their habitats to a point where their special status recognition is no longer 

warranted.” 

(Emphasis added.) The RMP DEIS does not present any meaningful population data that could be used to 

gauge the significance of impacts to these species. This is contrary to BLM Manual 6840.04.F.1 

(instructing BLM Field Office Managers to “conduct and maintain cur-rent inventories for special status 

species on public lands”). Chapter 4 of the DEIS states “Special Status Species inventories would be 

required for surface disturbing projects in known or suspected Special Status Species habitat.” DEIS at 4-

51. However, the proposed RMP direction does not contain a binding, enforceable standard requiring 

such inventories to be con-ducted at any time. Without current, reliable data on species’ populations, there 

is no way to estimate potential impacts on these populations from activities contemplated under the new 

RMP. There is a need to assess the impacts to these vulnerable species cumulatively, not just at the 

project level. The DEIS does not do this.

Response: The Kendall Warm Springs Dace occurs only on USFS lands at Kendall Warm Springs and is 

not found on BLM-administered lands. Information on Special Status Species management has been 

added to Chapter 2 of the final EIS. In most cases no population data are available for these species. BLM 

used the best available data in formulating the alternatives and impact analyses in the draft EIS and final 

EIS. 

Comment: PAGE: SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE: INSERT Upon delisting, management of 

habitat for the grizzly bear and gray wolf will be without special conditions. EXPLANATION: RMP 

provisions for T&E species should not apply upon delisting.

Response: Wolves designated as nonessential experimental that are not within units of the National Park 

or National Wildlife Refuge systems but are within the boundaries of the non-essential experimental 

population area are treated as proposed species for Section 7 consultation purposes. Management 

direction provided in 50 CFR Part 17 indicates that there are no conflicts envisioned with any current or 

anticipated management action by BLM or other federal agencies. The same CFR also states that 

management of wolves in the experimental population would not cause major changes to existing private 

or public land use restrictions. Land use restrictions on public lands could be used, however, to control 

human intrusion of den sites when fewer than six breeding pairs exist within the experimental area. Until 

the wolf is delisted, these conservation measures must still be implemented to comply with the ESA. 

Pinedale RMP A27-641 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

After delisting, Wyoming will be required to manage wolf population above 10 breeding pairs and 100 

wolves in mid-winter, including maintaining some wolf breeding pairs in suitable habitat in northwestern 

Wyoming outside the National Parks. These areas may include BLM lands, which would still be 

subjected to the management guidance included in the RMP. BLM will refer to WGFD on how to manage 

gray wolf denning locations under the WGFD Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan. After delisting, 

grizzly bears are protected as a BLM sensitive species under BLM Manual 6840-Special Status Species 

Management. In addition, the ESA requires that USFWS, in cooperation with the states, monitor the 

species for a minimum of 5 years to assess each species’ ability to sustain itself without the ESA’s 

protective measures. If, within the designated monitoring period, threats to the species change or 

unforeseen events change the stability of the population, then the species may be relisted or the 

monitoring period extended (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/delisting.pdf).

Comment: Although accurate at the time it was released, the Final EIS for the Pinedale RMP should be 

updated to reflect the fact that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a final rule 

designating the Greater Yellowstone Area Population of Grizzly Bears as a Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS) and removed the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear DPS from the Federal List of Threatened and 

Endangered Species. 72 Fed. Reg. 14866 (March 29, 2007) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.40(b), 

17.84(1)).

Response: This information has been updated; however, grizzly bears are still considered BLM sensitive 

and will be managed accordingly.

Comment: The western populations of the yellow-billed cuckoo have been classified as Threatened 

under the ESA, and Hunter et al. (1987) classified the yellow-billed cuckoo as a partial riparian obligate. 

According to Laymon and Halterman (1987), the yellow-billed cuckoo is native to willow/cottonwood 

woodlands less than 1300 m in elevation, larger than 10 hectares in extent, and wider than 100m. Yellowbilled cuckoos use willows for nesting but cottonwoods for feeding (Ibid.). The Wyoming Natural 

Diversity Database has records of yellow-billed cuckoo within the Pinedale Field Office boundary. The 

new RMP should include provisions to monitor cottonwood gallery woodlands for yellow-billed cuckoo, 

and to manage these woodlands for retention and recolonization of this bird.

Response: The yellow-billed cuckoo is actually a candidate species under the ESA. Efforts to locate new 

nesting pairs within the planning area are underway; the populations of cuckoos mentioned were actually 

observed in the Seedskadee NWR. There are many protection efforts for these habitat types throughout 

this document. Please see page 2-140.

Comment: The White-Tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys leucurus), Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis), 

and the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) are identified in Appendix 9, Table A9-1 as 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate Species within the Pinedale Planning Area. As none of 

these species have been listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) as a threatened, 

endangered, or candidate species, all three species should be removed from Table A9-1 and placed on 

Table A9-3, which is the list of BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species. Leaving these species on Table A9-1 

may create unnecessary confusion regarding their status under the Endangered Species Act. 

The FWS issued a Notice of 90-day Petition Finding determining that the White-Tailed Prairie Dog 

(Cynomys leucurus) should not be listed as an endangered or threatened species on November 9, 2004. 

See 69 Fed. Reg. 64889 (Nov. 9, 2004). Similarly, the FWS issued a Notice of 90-day Petition Finding 

regarding the Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) on May 20, 2005, that indicated that there was not 

sufficient scientific or commercial information to determine that listing the Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus 

idahoensis) was warranted. See 70 Fed. Reg. 29253 (May 20, 2005). The FWS also issued a 12-Month 

Finding for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) on January 12, 2005. 

A27-642 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

The FWS determined that listing the sage grouse was not warranted, primarily of the extensive efforts 

undertaken to maintain sage grouse populations by states, federal agencies, and local citizens. See 70 Fed. 

Reg. 2244 (January 12, 2005). Finally, not one of the species noted above was identified in the FWS’s 

most recent Review of Native Species that are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or 

Threatened as a candidate or proposed species. See 71 Fed. Reg. 53756 (Sept. 12, 2006). The BLM must 

correct Table A9-1.

Response: The inaccuracy of the tables is noted and has been corrected.

Comment: As a BLM Sensitive Species, annual monitoring efforts should be directed at burrowing owls 

to gain an index of population trend. Haug and Didiuk (1993) reported that 57% of burrowing owls 

responded to recorded calls in their study, and that the “tall and white” stance adopted in response to alls 

made detection easier. These researchers recommended a series of three surveys at 5-7 day intervals 

during the nesting season to monitor population trends. These monitoring protocols should be established 

as requirements under the new RMP.

Response: BLM is developing standardized monitoring protocols throughout the planning area.

Comment: 3. The DEIS states that exception requests to stipulations or operating standards may be 

approved by the Bureau if the implementation of “such a stipulation or operating standard is (1) 

technically not feasible, (2) economically prohibitive, or (3) an environmentally preferable alternative is 

available”. It is the Service’s understanding that exception requests will not be granted for stipulations or 

operating standards designed to protect threatened and endangered species, unless the Bureau consults 

with the Service and reinitiates consultation over the RMP, if appropriate. The Service suggests that the 

Bureau clarify this point throughout the document. 

Response: The Service is correct. Clarifying text has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: The DEIS states “oil and gas exploration activities would be managed through performancebased stipulations and mitigations provided in Appendix 3.” It is unclear from this statement if 

conservation measures for threatened and endangered species would be “performance-based.” If so, the 

Service is concerned that this approach could render the Bureau’s programmatic BAs and the BOs nonapplicable to the Pinedale RMP. The Service suggests that the Bureau clarify that stipulations for 

threatened or endangered species are still “prescriptive” in nature under alternative 4 and not 

“performance-based” if the Bureau wishes the programmatic BAs and BOs to apply.

Response: BLM intends to implement the conservation measures developed in the programmatic BAs 

and the biological opinions (BOs) for all alternatives. 

Comment: PAGE: G-23 CHANGE: TAKING – Under the Endangered Species Act, a taking is an 

unlawful action that results in the take of any endangered or threatened species of fish or wildlife. The 

ESA permits the taking of an endangered or threatened species otherwise prohibited by if such taking is 

incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. EXPLANATION: 

Definition needs to be added to give context to the foregoing term “take.” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1538(1)(B), 

1539(1)(B).

Response: BLM believes that defining the term “take” appropriately addresses this issue and it is not 

necessary to define “taking” as it is not addressed in the RMP.

Comment: White and Thurow (1985) recommended quarter-mile nest buffers during years of prey 

abundance, but noted that sensitivity to disturbance increased when prey were scarce, and recommended 

Pinedale RMP A27-643 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

that nest buffers be “considerably larger” during years of prey scarcity. Although Olendorff (1993) 

recommended buffer zones of only %2 mile for ferruginous hawk nests, he recommended much larger 

buffers during periods of prey scarcity. Because it is impractical to move roads away from nest sites when 

prey bases decline, the appropriate way to ensure the persistence of ferruginous hawks at traditional 

nesting sites is to use large buffers within which ground-disturbing activities are prohibited. Cerovski et 

al. (2001) reviewed the issue of appropriate nest buffers and recommended a 1-mile buffer, kept free from 

human disturbance. Thus, under this Alternative, 1-mile buffers prohibiting surface disturbance should 

apply to ferruginous hawk nest sites as well as all other raptor nest sites.

Response: BLM has taken information from USFWS on raptor nesting spatial buffers — for threatened 

and endangered species buffers are 1.0 mile; recommended spatial buffers for other diurnal raptors are 0.5 

miles (Romin and Muck 2002), which is why BLM has 0.5 and 1.0 mile spatial buffers.

Comment: In addition to indicator species, there are a number of species on the BLM Sensitive Species 

List, the WGFD Species Watch List, watch lists of globally imperiled and locally rare species tracked by 

the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, and federally listed species under the protection of the 

Endangered Species Act, all of which merit special conservation concern and attention. These species are 

of special concern because they are currently rare, are experiencing significant declines in overall 

population or distribution, or both. Some are at risk for global extinction. The revised RMP must include 

standards that guarantee the viability, and if needed, the recovery of these species. The DEIS has no such 

standards and no plan for recovery of any sensitive species should that become necessary. BLM through 

the proposed RMP revision, would allow during the life of the new plan vastly increased impacts to 

sensitive wildlife species in the planning area, without having any criteria for establishing what amount or 

what type of habitat is needed to sustain healthy populations of sensitive wildlife species. Nor does BLM 

have any plan for where displaced species can disperse or whether there is adequate habitat in the 

planning area to absorb these species. BLM’s approach in the RMP DEIS is reactive rather than proactive, 

and this is a huge shortcoming in a planning document that purports to map out the direction for 

management of the planning area for the next 15 years.

Response: The purpose of the unavailable and NSO areas is to provide undisturbed habitats for displaces 

species. The Jonah Interagency Office is also tasked with providing mitigation for wildlife impacted by 

the Jonah development. 

Comment: Nor does the DEIS demonstrate authorized and contemplated activities would ensure special 

status species objectives are being met. See BLM Manual 6840.04.F.5. The DEIS does state (page 4-255) 

that “Special Status Species, under the ESA and Wyoming BLM sensitive species guidance, would be 

protected on federal lands by site-specific mitigation, including exclusion or avoidance of all surface 

disturbing activities; however, protection of non-federally listed species on private and state lands may 

not occur, resulting in potentially significant impacts on these species.” Again, there is no explicit, 

binding standard in the proposed RMP management direction that would require BLM comply with this 

pledge.

Response: The RMP will not authorize any on-the-ground activity. Rather, it allocates uses that could be 

allowed in certain areas, lays out limitations on those uses, and provides objectives to be met in 

permitting uses. The RMP provides many actions designed to protect Special Status Species, given the 

types of development expected.

Comment: Equally troubling, nowhere in the DEIS or proposed RMP language could I find any 

discussion of recovery plans or population objectives to conserve Special Status Species in the Pinedale 

Resource Area. These are required by BLM Manual 6840.04.F.2. These plans and objectives should be 

developed before or in conjunction with the new RMP. If recovery plans were developed afterwards, the 

A27-644 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

BLM may find that the RMP would need to be substantially modified to account for the needs of these 

species.

Response: When recovery plans for Special Status Species are developed, they will be updated in the 

final decision.

Comment: In short, the DEIS does not demonstrate that the new RMP would use “all methods and 

procedures to improve the condition” of these species. Thus, the BLM is apparently ignoring its own 

Special Status Species management requirements. Please gather the necessary data on populations and 

develop conservation plans and population objectives, in accordance with BLM Manual 6840. The final 

decision on the new RMP should reflect the agency’s directives to improve the condition of Special 

Status Species and their habitats. In particular, given the precarious status of native cutthroat trout and 

other aquatic species listed with Special Status (e.g., boreal toad), all efforts should be made to identify 

and completely avoid their habitats.

Response: BLM is currently gathering location/habitat data on many Special Status Species and 

management strategies will be updated in the record of decision. In particular, WGFD has been 

identifying aquatic species listed with Special Status. BLM will update the record of decision upon the 

completion of these efforts.

Comment: PAGE: A18-21 SECTION: Gray Wolf RECOMMENDED CHANGE: These provisions shall 

not apply if the gray wolf is delisted. EXPLANATION: Wyoming plan would then apply so these 

restrictions should be dropped. 

Response: Wolves designated as nonessential experimental that are not within units of the National Park 

or National Wildlife Refuge systems but are within the boundaries of the nonessential experimental 

population area are treated as proposed species for Section 7 consultation purposes. Management 

direction provided in 50 CFR Part 17 indicates that there are no conflicts envisioned with any current or 

anticipated management action by BLM or other federal agencies. The same CFR also states that 

management of wolves in the experimental population would not cause major changes to existing private 

or public land use restrictions. Land use restrictions on public lands could be used, however, to control 

human intrusion of den sites when fewer than six breeding pairs exist within the experimental area. Until 

the wolf is delisted, these conservation measures must still be implemented to comply with the ESA. 

After delisting, Wyoming will be required to manage wolf population above 10 breeding pairs and 100 

wolves in mid-winter, including maintaining some wolf breeding pairs in suitable habitat in northwestern 

Wyoming outside the National Parks. These areas may include BLM lands, which would still be 

subjected to the management guidance included in the RMP. BLM will refer to WGFD on how to manage 

gray wolf denning locations under the WGFD Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan.

Comment: The BLM should clarify the language Appendix 8, pg. A8-2, regarding the need to engage in 

Section 7 Consultations in two respects. First, the BLM should clarify that Section 7 Consultation is only 

required if listed species are present in the area. Second, in the event the BLM waives seasonal 

stipulations as part of a project-level NEPA document, the BLM should engage in Section 7 Consultation 

as part of the normal NEPA process obviating the need to engage in consultation on a yearly basis as it 

pertains to exception request.

Response: This language is meant to inform the reader that any COAs that are instigated to protect 

species listed under the ESA are not subject to the exceptions, waivers, and modification process. If 

changes in the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion are necessary, the BLM must reinitiate 

Pinedale RMP A27-645 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

consultation with USFWS. The language regarding when Section 7 consultation is required is stated in 

Volume 1, page 2-12 of the draft EIS.

Comment: This comment is from page 33. BLM must include in its environmental analysis population 

trends and viability criteria for all species, and particularly for sensitive species of concern. It has failed to 

do so and this violates NEPA and FLPMA. If BLM doesn’t have this data, it cannot possibly ensure 

species viability and take the required actions to prevent activities which could lead to listing of a species. 

We request that BLM conduct the necessary analysis required of it.

Response: BLM provided population data to the extent that it was available.

Oil and Gas, Transportation and OHV, Monitoring and Mitigation 

Comment: This proposal calls for an increase of 4,400 more wells which are almost ten times more than 

the current amount. With the ramped up drilling and removal of year around stipulations the wildlife 

would be greatly impacted. Not only would the native ground species such as sage grouse be impacted but 

also the big game animals which this part of Wyoming is noted for. Already recent studies show a 

correlation between mule deer population decline and increased gas and oil activity.

Response: The draft EIS provides an appropriate discussion of the potential impacts on wildlife and other 

resources from development of these leases. The Preferred Alternative attempts to provide balanced 

management on a landscape scale, with certain areas unavailable for leasing and development.

Comment: Oil and gas development has been shown through scientific research to be the primary cause 

of significant declines in big game and sage grouse populations both inside and near oil and gas fields that 

have not experienced the dense development that is planned for the Pinedale Resource Area. I am 

opposed to any removal or relaxation of seasonal drilling restrictions for big game and I oppose any plan 

that doesn’t require a buffer around sage grouse leks. These proposals counter the recommendations of 

researchers and show a disregard for wildlife welfare in an area that has already been highly negatively 

impacted. Instead BLM should be requiring things such as directional drilling, development in phases/a 

slower pace, and multiple wells per well site to reduce damage. The proposed extensive increase of wells 

makes a farce of any proposed wildlife protection--how can the area be anything but an industrial zone?

Response: These recommendations have been included in Appendix 3. 

Comment: FINALLY, ALTHOUGH THE BLM PROPOSES TO LIMIT DEVELOPMENT IN SOME 

AREAS, THERE ARE TOO MANY LOOPHOLES in the plan that could allow intensive development 

on key wildlife habitat and minimize wildlife protections.

Response: Additional language specifying how the oil and gas management areas would work, and how 

they could be changed over time, has been provided in the final EIS; the Large Block NSO Areas and 

Unavailable Areas have been revised.

Comment: I can see in the DEIS that you have considered many diverse environments, and a large total 

land area, to construct this plan. However, I am distressed at the similarity between the total area of land 

planned for mineral (oil/gas) development in alternative 2 and that in alternative 4. Obviously, alternative 

3 is purposed to conserve wildlife habitat and 2 is meant to maximize oil/gas land usage. Alternative #4 

would appear then to be the compromise - but the number of acres devoted to oil/gas is hardly less in #4 

than in #2! How can this be a compromise? How can alternative #4 really be protecting the wildlife much 

more than alternative #2 is? For this reason, I can’t support alternative #4. I deeply value wildlife habitat, 

and belive that America must do more to conserve what wild resources it has left. The Upper Green 

Valley Consortium has some good ideas towards more balanced management, such as cluster and 

A27-646 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

directional drilling, and stricter regulations on energy companies to decrease the total impact they have on 

the land. Please consider more land- and wildlife-conserving measures such as these. Nothing bad will 

happen to the gas if it takes a little longer to get it out. The wildlife, however, may not do as well if we 

don’t manage it correctly right now.

Response: These recommendations have been included in Appendix 3. The areas available for oil and gas 

leasing have been revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: 2. It should be considered that the surrounding areas are undergoing major oil and gas 

development. The possibility of disruption of a rich wildlife habitat in this area, in combination with 

major developments in the surrounding area, is a concern. All of this, all at once, cannot be beneficial. 

Response: Please refer to the Cumulative Impacts for Wildlife and Fish Habitat on pages 4-254 through 

4-257, which address the issues of development.

Comment: Data from Western EcoSystems Technology (sponsored by the oil and gas industry, 

incidentally) showed a 46-percent decline in mule deer on the Pinedale Anticline over the preceding four 

years as a result of oil and gas development (see Hall Sawyer, et al., Western EcoSystems Technology 

[WEST] 2005: PAPA study). Also in 2005, Matt J. Holloran, a University of Wyoming doctoral 

candidate, presented his PhD dissertation (“Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population 

response to natural gas field development in western Wyoming,” University of Wyoming, Laramie, 

Wyoming, 211 pp.) Holloran’s scholarly scientific study of the same area found that sage grouse are 

disturbed by both drilling and post-drilling development activity, and if current population trends 

continue, sage grouse populations within the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Fields will disappear within 19 

years. Tripling the number of gas wells over the next 10 or so years would simply exacerbate the 

problems, bringing on the projected disaster more quickly 

Response: Please see environmental consequences to wildlife pages 4-180 through 4-212.

Comment: I consider the EIS to be inadequate in its assessment of the increased drilling which will be 

permitted in the Pinedale area in the following categories: It does not preserve critical areas adjacent to 

wilderness and wilderness study areas.

Response: Please refer to Map 2-9, Oil and Gas Management Areas Alternative 4. The areas available for 

oil and gas leasing have been revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: In summary, protection for big game crucial ranges ostensibly afforded in the alternatives 

presented in the DEIS may be compromised at anytime that recoverable gas and oil reserves are 

discovered. Because of the extensive energy development that has already occurred in the planning area 

and predicted future development, the DEIS must consider an alternative that actually protects crucial big 

game ranges from development until such time as alternative habitats are either identified or made 

available by reclamation of disturbed areas. It is my professional opinion that scientifically based means 

exist to develop an alternative that allows for energy resource extraction while reducing impacts to big 

game animals and their habitats. A more conservation oriented alternative would incorporate some of the 

good ideas in Alternative 3 of the RMP/DEIS but would assure protection of crucial wildlife habitats and 

likely result in a reduced pace of energy development. Thus the BLM has an obligation under NEPA and 

FLPMA to consider and present such an alternative.

Response: Text clarifying how the oil and gas management areas work and the conditions required for 

conversion to allow surface occupancy or leasing has been added to the final EIS.

Pinedale RMP A27-647 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Comment: Finally, although the BLM proposes to limit development in some areas, there are too many 

loopholes in the plan that could allow intensive development on key wildlife habitat and minimize 

wildlife protections.

Response: Further discussion of how the oil and gas management areas work and the conditions required 

for conversion to allow leasing or development in Unavailable Areas or NSO areas has been added to the 

final EIS.

Comment: Wildlife mitigation measures are not based on available scientific data and provide so many 

exceptions and loopholes that their ability to offset the adverse impacts of energy development is both 

unknown and unlikely. Similarly, the monitoring and mitigation measures relied upon in the DEIS are too 

vague to meet the requirements of NEPA and inadequate to identify and prevent unacceptable impacts to 

wildlife resources.

Response: More explanation of how the oil and gas management areas would function has been added to 

the final EIS. It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, as the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted.

Comment: Recommendation 4: The BLM must work at a landscape scale to assess the affected 

environment, evaluate alternatives and set management prescriptions. The BLM should compile wildlife 

habitat data and related ecological value data to assess needs and impacts across a landscape that not only 

includes the entire Pinedale RA but extends significantly beyond it. The agency should further produce 

mandatory management prescriptions including areas of no oil and gas development and areas of highly 

restricted development based on wildlife impacts research similar to those outlined below. These new 

management prescriptions should set the landscape on a trajectory to protect the most important wildlife 

habitat areas. In the short-term, unleased lands will be protected in these areas and in the long-term (as 

leases expire and production is completed) these areas will be restored, unfragmented and connected 

across the broader landscape.

Response: BLM is currently collecting fine scaled habitat data to assess the seasonal habitat 

functionality. This information will be used for mitigation projects, habitat improvement projects, and 

project planning. In addition, the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative was created to look at 

habitat management across landscape covering multiple jurisdictions.

Comment: Item: Page 2-143, Section 2.5.5, Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management “Unavailable Areas 

would be managed for protection of wildlife habitats through indefinite postponement of the availability 

of lands for oil and gas leasing.” Comment - Further, opportunities for offsite mitigation is not referenced. 

Techniques exist that use science based methodologies to identify areas of offsite mitigation to offset 

impacts for larger scale oil and gas development. This option should be incorporated as a tool in assessing 

options in managing larger scale oil and gas development. Comment: - Indefinite postponement of leasing 

is an unacceptable management approach and is inconsistent with the provisions of BLM national energy 

policy (chapter 1, page 15) which states that public lands shall remain open and available for mineral 

exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative actions are clearly justified in the 

national interest. 

Response: Offsite mitigation is provided for in Section 2.3.16. It is in the public interest to protect 

surface resources other than oil and gas.

Comment: PAGE: 2-13 SECTION: 2.3.16 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE An example of an 

instance where compensatory [compensation](strikeout) or offsite mitigation could be utilized would be 

A27-648 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

oil and gas field developments where the project proponent has exhausted opportunities for mitigation 

onsite and wildlife habitat impacts cannot be satisfactorily mitigated through onsite measures. 

Compensatory [Compensation](strikeout) mitigation would be used as a tool to address loss of habitat 

effectiveness when reclamation, best management practices (BMP), and onsite mitigation measures are 

not adequate to mitigate the impacts of proposed actions. EXPLANATION: The section needs to be 

revised to conform to IM 2005-69. Replace “compensation mitigation” with “compensatory mitigation.”

Response: The word has been replaced as per IM 2005-69.

Comment: We find the current federal and state management of our wildlife resources to be reactive, 

with no clear plans to maintain, improve or restore habitats so vital to the future of our wildlife 

populations. Accordingly, we insist that the following corrective actions be considered and implemented: 

4. While we support removing certain areas from oil and gas and locatable mineral leasing, we cannot 

condone committing areas to full industrial uses. All BLM lands should be managed to support healthy 

wildlife habitat.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of existing valid oil and gas leases. 

Comment: The new RFD should reflect the wildlife in the area are in either increasing in population or 

are stable.

Response: Updated wildlife population numbers are included in the final EIS.

Comment: The removal of vast areas of land from future oil and gas development and potential 

restrictions on existing leases Alternative 3 also significantly restricts the amount of domestic energy 

available to the nation. If enacted, Alternative 3 would deprive the nation of 3,322 billion cubic feet 

(BCF) of natural gas and 27,000,000 barrels of oils compared to Alternative 2. 1 BCF of natural gas is the 

average annual amount used by 13,700 Wyoming households. See Energy information Administration 

(2002 use rates). The loss of 3,322 BCF represents an enormous loss of potential domestic energy and 

associated revenue. The adoption of Alternative 3 would also cause the loss of 2,282 jobs and the loss of 

2.3 billion dollars in mineral tax revenue. The BLM cannot adopt an alternative that would devastate 

economic development, reduce domestic energy supplies, and devastate the local tax base.

Response: BLM analyzed an appropriate range of alternatives.

Comment: Chapter 2 Page 99-100 Commentor WGFD Add the following Management Goal “Wildlife 

habitat management would be oriented toward the maintenance of fish and wildlife habitats to support 

populations at WGFD planning objective levels.”

Response: With the amount of development potential within existing valid oil and gas leases, it may not 

be possible to maintain populations at WGFD objectives. 

Comment: Recommendation 1: The Environmental Consequences portion of the Draft RMP needs to 

include a more thorough review of the current literature on the direct indirect and cumulative impacts of 

roads and oil and gas development on wildlife, including the research and findings discussed below. Such 

literature should not just be mentioned, but be used to craft the management alternatives, including 

protective management based on the effects of roads and oil and gas development on individual species as 

detailed below. The selected alternative should, based on the best available science, sustain and protect 

wildlife resources in the Pinedale Resource Area. Further, the RMP should commit BLM to taking into 

account important developments in scientific literature and provide for adjustments to protective 

management based on new information. 

Pinedale RMP A27-649 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Response: Transportation plans are being developed at the EIS level. In addition, a road closure plan was 

developed and submitted in the Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 10, Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 

Notices. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management [WY–100–1110–PI] Notice of Seasonal 

Closure of Public Lands to Motorized Vehicle Use AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of seasonal closure of certain public lands located in Sublette County, Wyoming, to all 

types of motor vehicle use and/or human presence.

Comment: A review of the scientific literature is critically important. We are concerned that the review 

in the Draft RMP is incomplete and misses important literature and consequently significant findings of 

biologists that. study wildlife impacts from roads and oil and gas development. This is of great concern 

given the intensive development expected - 3,946 to 5,924 well pads and 36,903 to 51,798 acres of direct 

disturbance. The indirect and cumulative impacts must also be evaluated thoroughly and quantitatively for 

each alternative. 

Substantially more information on the impact of roads and oil and gas related infrastructure on wildlife is 

available. These impacts are widely recognized in the scientific community as having a range of direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects on habitats and wildlife (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department 2004, Wisdom 2004). Effects range from direct removal of habitat to long-term 

displacement of species from preferred habitat. The indirect and cumulative effects are hardest to 

measure, but are increasingly studied through analysis of habitat fragmentation.

Response: The impact analysis has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: The DEIS Fails to Provide the Requisite “Hard Look” at the Potential Environmental Impacts 

of the Action Alternatives on Wildlife NEPA requires all federal agencies take a “hard look” at the 

potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions and disseminate the conclusions of this analysis 

to the public. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989). Through this 

process, an agency must prepare a “coherent and comprehensive up-front environmental analysis to 

ensure informed decision making to the end that ‘the agency will not act on incomplete information, only 

to regret its decision after it is too late to correct.’ Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 

161 F.3d 1208, 1216 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 

371 (1989)). The DEIS for the Pinedale planning area must provide that hard look before BLM leaps to 

adopt a land use plan that will place significant public resources at risk. It fails to do so. 

For example, impacts on wildlife species are likely to vary depending on how much of the planning area 

is designated as “Intensively Developed Fields,” “Minimally Developed Fields,” “Large Block NSO 

Areas,” and “Unavailable Areas. Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, in “Minimally Developed Areas” and 

“Large Block NSO Areas” (for Alternative 4), “[w]hen exploration of an oil or gas reservoir reaches a 

down-hole well density of one well every 160 acres, the area would become an “Intensively Developed 

Field.” In other words, there are no real assurances that “Intensively Developed Fields” will not 

eventually overtake a majority of the planning area, providing little, if any, protections for wildlife. 

Additionally, in “Unavailable Areas” under Alternative 3 and “Large Block NSO Areas” and 

“Unavailable Areas” under Alternative 4, the NSO or unavailable designation could be lifted and specific 

areas could be leased if development on adjacent state or private mineral estate is determined to be 

draining federal oil and/or gas. Pinedale RMP DEIS at 2-48 and 2-49. Again, the LEIS fails to assess the 

level of impacts on wildlife species if these designations are lifted.

Response: The impact analysis is adequate. The language for conversion, and the areas available for oil 

and gas leasing, have been modified in the final EIS. 

A27-650 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: Examples of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of roads on wildlife and their habitats 

identified in the biological literature include (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, New Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish 2005). 

• Fragmentation of connected habitats including the loss of core habitat areas and habitat 

connectivity for wildlife movements and dispersal 

• Adverse genetic effects such as reducing genetic diversity by isolating populations 

• Increased potential for extirpation of localized populations or extinction of narrowly distributed 

species from catastrophic events 

• Modifications of animal behavior through reductions in habitat use due to human activity and 

interference with wildlife functions such as courtship, nesting, and migration 

• Disruption of the physical environment in many ways including direct removal of habitat due to 

route construction, reduction of cover and habitat security, increasing dust and erosion 

• Alteration of the chemical environment through vehicle emissions and herbicides 

• Changes in habitat composition by direct loss of vegetation from road construction and changes 

in microclimates in road edge habitats potentially resulting in changes in type and quality of food 

base and reduction in habitat cover 

• Spread of exotic species that may lead to competition with preferred forage species 

• Degradation of aquatic habitats through alteration of stream banks and increased sediment loads 

• Changes to flows of energy and nutrients such as changes in temperatures in microclimates 

created at road edges 

• Increased alteration and use of habitats by humans through activities including increased 

unethical hunting practices and increased dispersion of recreation impacts, particularly by offroad vehicles due to a proliferation of roads 

• Mortality from construction of roads 

• Mortality from collisions with vehicles

Response: The impact analysis has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: The Preferred Management Alternative Fails to Preserve Multiple Use and Sustained Yield of 

Resources on the Public Lands. Perhaps the most glaring defect in BLM’s preferred Resource 

Management Plan for public lands in the Pinedale Resource Area is that, in many ways, it is not a plan at 

all. In the absence of boundaries that constrain where and how much of the Pinedale Resource Area will 

become designated as “Intensively Developed Fields,” BLM has, in essence, delegated much of its 

planning authority to the oil and gas industry. 

Contrary to the inferences in the draft document, nothing in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

Reauthorization of 2000 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has established energy extraction as the 

dominant use on the public lands. However, for the Pinedale planning area, it is clear that BLM intends 

for oil and gas development to become the dominant use. This sentiment is underscored when BLM states 

that “[w]ildlife habitat would generally only be protected if a mineral commodity is not present for 

extraction” Pinedale RMP DEIS at 4-210. BLM also states, “[b]ecause of the large amount of oil and gas 

Pinedale RMP A27-651 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

reserves and existing leases in the planning area, loss of important habitat could occur throughout the 

planning area, depending on the economic feasibility of development and fluctuations in market price.” 

Pinedale RMP DEIS at 4-184. FLPMA does not surrender the conservation of wildlife and wildlife 

habitat contingent on the presence of mineral commodities or on the economics of oil and gas.

Response: The Preferred Alternative provides for multiple uses on a planning area scale. The language 

for conversion, and the areas available for oil and gas leasing, have been modified in the final EIS. 

Comment: As documented by the comprehensive literature reviews cited above and the additional 

conclusions reached by state agencies in their respective reports, the existence of motorized routes can 

result in habitat fragmentation and, depending on the use of the route, have impacts extending well into 

surrounding habitats. Such fragmentation from transportation networks is immediate, leads to reductions 

in habitat effectiveness and can lead to a range of risks to the survival of wildlife. Sound science must be 

used to evaluate impacts from motorized travel routes, including those from energy development before 

adopting an oil and gas development plan.

Response: Please see revisions to the impact analysis in the final EIS. Transportation plans are being 

developed at the EIS level. In addition, a road closure plan was developed and submitted in the Federal 

Register, Vol. 72, No. 10, Wednesday, January 17, 2007, Notices. Department of the Interior Bureau of 

Land Management [WY–100–1110–PI] Notice of Seasonal Closure of Public Lands to Motorized Vehicle 

Use AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of seasonal closure of certain 

public lands located in Sublette County, Wyoming, to all types of motor vehicle use and/or human 

presence.

Comment: the revised RMP should call for staged development in which some blocks of lands are open 

to leasing and some are temporarily withdrawn from leasing and development until a later time.18 In 

areas where other uses may be put at risk by oil and gas activities, the revised RMP should require a 

cautious approach to development with monitoring adequate to ensure that predicted impacts to 

environmental resources have not been exceeded and that mitigation measures are sufficient. Utilizing 

more directionally drilled wells would decrease the amount of land fragmentation and surface disturbance 

by allowing multiple wells to be drilled from a single pad.19 Less well pads would also lessen traffic, 

thereby decreasing noise and air pollution.

Response: These recommendations may be found in Appendix 5.

Comment: The Wyoming Game and Fish Department prepared a report containing comprehensive 

guidelines for wildlife protection in areas of energy development, based on a literature review of the 

effects of roads, other infrastructure, and activities associated with energy development on Wyoming’s 

sagebrush and grassland habitats and wildlife species (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2004). This 

report and its updated version (currently available in draft form, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

2007a) is designed specifically to provide guidance to the BLM and USFS on protecting wildlife from oil 

and gas development. Because a substantial portion of the impact of oil and gas development comes from 

its relatively dense road network, much of the literature cited in the report documents the impacts of roads 

on wildlife. The report acknowledges the threat to wildlife from fragmentation, identifying fragmentation 

and diminishing quality of sagebrush ecosystems as “principal reasons why populations and distributions 

of associated wildlife are declining.” (p. 2). The report demonstrates the likelihood of habitat 

fragmentation from roads and other disturbances associated with energy development, and emphasizes the 

range of damage to habitat that occurs from such development: “Most adverse effects of oil and gas 

development can be divided into 7 categories: 1) direct loss of habitat; 2) physiological stress to wildlife; 

3) disturbance and displacement of wildlife; 4) habitat fragmentation and isolation; 5) alteration of 

environmental functions and processes (e.g., stream hydrology, water quantity/quality); 6) introduction of 

A27-652 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

competitive and predatory organisms; and 7) secondary effects created by work force assimilation and 

growth of service industries. The direct loss or alteration of habitat is always a concern, however oil and 

gas developments are typically configured as point (well pads) and linear (roads, pipelines) disturbances 

scattered throughout broader areas. The collective area of disturbance may encompass just 5-10% of the 

land. However, the influence of each well pad, road, and facility extends to surrounding habitats where 

the proximity of disturbance causes stress and avoidance by wildlife.” (WGD 2007, p 8-9).

Response: The impact analysis has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: The report provides further details about how oil and gas development causes habitat 

fragmentation: “As densities of wells, roads, and facilities increase, habitats within and near well fields 

become progressively less effective until most animals no longer use these areas. Although vegetation and 

other natural features may remain physically unaltered, wildlife make proportionately less use of areas 

near oil and gas facilities. Animals that remain within the affected zones are subjected to increased 

physiological stress. This avoidance and stress response impairs habitat function by reducing the 

capability of wildlife to use the habitat effectively. In addition, physical or psychological barriers lead to 

fragmentation of habitats further limiting the availability of effective habitat. An area of intensive activity 

or construction becomes a barrier when animals can’t or won’t cross it to access otherwise suitable 

habitat. These impacts are especially problematic when they occur within limiting habitat components 

such as crucial winter ranges and reproductive habitats.” (WGFI) 2007, p. 9)

Response: Additional discussion of the impacts of fragmentation has been added to the final EIS.

Comment: The Wyoming Game and Fish Department report further notes that wildlife will not simply 

move to adjacent habitat when disturbed by oil and gas development as is often assumed: “This 

presumption contradicts a fundamental axiom of population ecology and wildlife management that has 

been known and reconfirmed since the time of Aldo Leopold - populations of organisms increase to fill 

vacant, suitable habitat and are then regulated by the essential component of their habitat that is in least 

supply (Leopold 1933, Edwards and Fowle 1955, Smith 1966:355, Odum 1971:183). For example, 

availability and quality of crucial winter ranges at lower elevations generally limit productivity, 

recruitment and abundance of migratory big game populations in mountainous environments. Complexes 

of suitable breeding and brood-rearing habitats are thought to limit populations of sage grouse. In any 

given environment, existing populations of wildlife occupy the habitats that are suitable. Conversely, the 

areas that are not suitable for one reason or another are not used. When activities associated with energy 

development displace animals from otherwise suitable habitats, the animals are forced to utilize marginal 

habitats or they relocate to unaffected habitats where the population density and competition increase. 

Consequences of such displacement and competition are lower survival, lower reproductive success, 

lower recruitment, and lower carrying capacity leading ultimately to reduced populations.” (WGFD 2007, 

p. 11).

Response: The impact analysis has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: RECOMMENDATION 1: The Environmental Consequences portion of the Draft RMP needs 

to include a more thorough review of the current literature on the direct indirect and cumulative impacts 

of roads and oil and gas development on wildlife, including the research and findings discussed above. 

Such literature should not just be mentioned, but be used to craft the management alternatives, including 

protective management based on the effects of roads and oil and gas development on individual species as 

detailed above. The selected ’alternative should, based on best available science, sustain and protect 

wildlife resources in the Pinedale Resource Area. Further, the RMP should commit BLM to taking into 

account important developments in scientific literature and provide for adjustments to protective 

management based on new information.

Pinedale RMP A27-653 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Response: The impact analysis has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: The data that we have previously provided and highlighted shows not only that there is a 

substantial, established body of literature supporting the need to address habitat fragmentation from routes 

and oil and gas development, but also that the level of fragmentation in the preferred alternative will 

result in unacceptably high impacts on wildlife habitat for the species that the agencies are required to 

protect under FLPMA, NEPA, and the BLM’s National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. The 

agency should utilize this data both to evaluate potential impacts of proposed oil and gas development 

(and other travel planning) and to design an acceptable travel network and pattern of development, which 

provides sufficient core areas and suitable route densities to protect wildlife habitat.

Response: The impact analysis has been updated in the final EIS. Transportation planning will be 

conducted after the completion of the RMP; transportation planning is also conducted at the field 

development stage. Please see page 2-135 and Appendix 17. 

Comment: Language through portions of chapter 2 and 4 implies that areas of “Large Block NSO” in the 

Preferred Alternative and “Unavailable Areas” (shown in Maps 2-8 and 2-9) would not be developed for 

oil and gas. Yet, other places reveal that all “minimally developed areas”, “large block NSO areas” and 

“unavailable areas” can be converted into “Intensively Developed Fields” if federal minerals are drained 

by a range of circumstances including: adjacent state or private mineral estate drains federal mineral 

resources, “an appropriate level of environmental analysis is completed” ( level of analysis not defined) or 

impacts to wildlife and other resources “would be adequately mitigated” (mitigation not defined). Except 

for WSA’s or other areas where laws prevent leasing. Most critical wildlife habitat is left with no 

assurance of protection. (Draft RMP, p. 2-47 to 2-49 [alt 2-4] and 2-121 to 2-122 [preferred alt]). 

Conversion of “Large Block NSO” to an “Intensively Developed Field” could be “determined on a caseby-case basis” and be determined based on “surface resources present in the area, the subsurface geology 

and development methods required and the professional judgment of geologists and reservoir engineers” 

(Draft RMP, p. 2-48). 

Additionally, under the Preferred Alternative “Minimally Developed Areas” “could convert to 

‘Intensively Developed Fields’ when bottom-hole well density exceeds 1 well per 160 acres. Conversion 

could require preparation of a field development EA, EIS or Supplemental EIS” (Draft RMP, p. 2-121). 

(emphasis added) All of these statements suggest that most lands, including the “Large Block NSO” in 

the Preferred Alternative and the “Unavailable Area” in the conservation oriented Alternative 3 - all the 

lands ostensibly zoned for wildlife and ecological protection - are open for conversion to “Intensively 

Developed Fields”. This loop hole in the oil and gas management area designations must be closed. IF the 

conversion from “Unavailable Area” to “Intensively Developed Field” were NOT allowed in the RMP, 

then Alternative 3 would a substantial improvement over the Preferred Alternative. The “Unavailable 

Area” management areas for Alternative 3 shown in Map 2-8 (Draft RMP) could provide refugia 

demonstrated to be needed in section 2 of these comments and would be an good starting point to discuss 

and evaluate an appropriate management alternative.

Response: Further discussion of how the oil and gas management areas work and the conditions required 

for conversion to allow leasing or development in Unavailable Areas or NSO areas has been added to the 

final EIS.

Comment: RECOMMENDATION 3: Larger management areas with no surface occupancy from oil and 

gas must be set up in the course of this RMP process to protect wildlife. Areas must include winter, 

crucial winter, transitional, migratory and parturition habitats for ungulates and winter, breeding, nesting 

and rearing habitats for sage-grouse. No exceptions should be granted within these areas. No conversions 

should be allowed to other oil and gas management areas without a full supplemental EIS.

A27-654 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Response: The unavailable areas have been updated and expanded in the final EIS. Exceptions would be 

analyzed according to Appendix 8. BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development on existing 

valid leases.

Comment: First, ecological values should be mapped out across the full resource area. Maps showing the 

many overlapping ecological values should be prepared and, used to identify specific areas to be protected 

for their wildlife values and corridors connecting these patches with each other and with transitional 

habitats or migratory corridors where needed (e.g. for ungulates migrating to summer range). The Upper 

Green River Valley Coalition produced and provided the BLM with maps illustrating the overlapping 

crucial habitat areas and fully endorses the BLM using these in crafting stronger management 

prescriptions for wildlife protection. After the important habitat areas have been defined, the practical 

realities of the distribution of land ownership, split estate minerals and existing leasing constraints should 

be considered. The plan should set up long-term (beyond the 15-20 year life of this plan) wildlife 

management zones based on habitat needs for the species included in these comments. The management 

prescriptions in these zones may vary by leasing status and split estate status. All wildlife zones should 

have management prescriptions based on wildlife needs and in the long-term move toward a more 

protective status. Examples for the wildlife management zones should include areas of no development 

and areas of restricted development. Management prescriptions should be similar to the following for all 

lands with federal minerals whether or not the BLM has surface management authority: 

• federal minerals not leased 

• No new leases in critical habitats. 

• Where leasing is allowed, new leases must have minimum habitat core area and maximum area of 

direct disturbance based on wildlife research and follow phased and cluster development. BLM 

can help ensure this by setting surface density limits in the lease. 

• federal minerals leased, not held by production 

• When leases expire don’t re-lease lands in critical habitats. 

• Insure full and timely restoration of developed lands before any new leasing occurs. 

• Where leasing is allowed, new leases must have minimum habitat core area and maximum area of 

direct disturbance based on wildlife research and follow phased and cluster development. 

• federal minerals leased, and held by production 

• Current oil and gas production continues 

• After production is complete, do not re-lease lands in critical habitats 

The term “critical habitats” used in the bullets above should include but not be limited to winter, crucial 

winter, transitional, migratory and parturition habitats for ungulates and winter, breeding, nesting and 

rearing habitats for sage-grouse. Clearly defined wildlife management zones with prescriptions such as 

those listed above could set a trajectory for management of the lands for the next century, not just the next 

20 years. This plan needs to look at how it will set the stage for sustaining the landscape and its resources 

beyond current leasing - beyond the life of this RMP.

Response: BLM is currently collecting fine scaled habitat data to assess the seasonal habitat use across 

landscapes. This information will be used for mitigation projects, habitat improvement projects, and 

project planning to maintain functional habitats across the landscapes. The Wyoming Landscape 

Pinedale RMP A27-655 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Conservation Initiative was created to look at habitat management across landscapes covering multiple 

jurisdictions. 

Comment: 5. Alternatives are not balanced among the many resources and uses of the Pinedale Resource 

Area and are biased toward oil and gas extraction. The Draft RMP does not provide a balanced range of 

alternatives that gives sufficient consideration to the long-term protection of habitat and wildlife. On the 

contrary, all the alternatives appear to allow for full field or intense development in the Jonah and 

Pinedale Anticline fields. The greater Big Piney-LaBarge Area is at least initially protected from the most 

intense level of development in Alternative 3. However, with the exception of very small land units 

including ACEC’s, SRMAs, big game migration bottle neck, WSRs Historic trails sensitive Cultural sites 

and locations for special status plants, all lands can be converted to an area of intense development (see 

explanation under number 3 above). There is no alternative that provide sufficient sage steppe wildlife 

habitat with protection over the life of the plan. No alternative attempts to require phased or cluster 

development to protect other uses and resources, particularly for habitat and wildlife.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development on existing valid leases. The 

alternatives provide for conservation of wildlife habitats and a balance of uses on a landscape scale, while 

providing for the legal rights of oil and gas leaseholders. 

Comment: RECOMMENDATION 5: The management alternatives presented in the Draft RMP are not 

balanced and should be changed to remove the bias toward oil and gas extraction. Given the substantial 

negative impacts already affecting and likely to continue affecting wildlife and sage steppe habitat the 

final alternative must, at a minimum, ensure more protection of natural resources. With BLM having 

already leased over 70% of the resource area and permitted several large gas fields -including new infill 

expansions, more compromise is inappropriate. Instead, a more conservative and restrictive approach is 

needed. The Pinedale RMP should be amended to incorporate a system for clustered and phased 

development allowing for added protection for habitat and wildlife by geographically clustering 

development and phasing production and restoration over a longer period of time.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development on existing valid leases. It is not 

possible to cluster development until exploration has determined the extent and characteristic of the 

resource.

Comment: Additional challenges TU sees if Alternative 4 is selected include the relaxing of wildlife 

protections regardless of the level of habitat importance to the species survival, deferring the monitoring 

and mitigation plans to an unknown time period, allowing development on No Surface Occupancy areas, 

and the entire discussion of Intensively Developed Fields to Minimal Intensity Development (levels of 

environmental protection). This last scenario has many loopholes scattered through its reasoning and 

allows minimally intensive developed areas to accelerate quite easily to become an Intensively Developed 

Field with very little science entering the rationale. 

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. The 

discussion of how the oil and gas management areas work and the requirements for conversion to an 

Intensively Developed Field has been expanded in the final EIS for clarity.

Comment: In reference to the discussion in Minerals Management that off-site gas drilling mitigation 

would occur on highly intensively developed fields, how is this application considered a conservation 

consideration? What are some of the problems associated with a drainage issue and specifically what 

types of impacts are associated with this? Plans that call for “adequate mitigation will be pursued” are not 

A27-656 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

enough. Off-site mitigation for habitat protection serves to offer wildlife and fisheries conservation 

alternatives; off-site mitigation for additional gas drilling opens up a whole new level for management 

actions on the surface resource.

Response: The concern of drainage only occurs if a natural gas seam formation is continuous across 

leases, i.e., from private minerals to federal minerals. If the private minerals entity drills a well that has a 

continuous seam across a federal lease, that entity could conceivably remove all of the gas and not be 

subject to federal royalties that would otherwise go into the federal treasury. The federal government 

cannot require offsite mitigation and, for the reason stated in your comments, offsite mitigation should be 

a last resort method. 

Comment: Alternative 3 should not have intensively developed areas in sage grouse leks areas or in 

critical winter range for big game. Management of big game habitats to protect wildlife resource values is 

a strong objective and should have benchmarks for measuring success or failure. 

Response: The Intensively Developed Area for Alternative 3 is in existing producing natural gas fields 

that have well spacing between 5 and 80 acres.

Comment: The consideration of paced or phased development should be seriously undertaken. By 

undertaking such an action, a better scientific understanding of potential impacts of gas and oil 

development on fisheries, watersheds and wildlife can be scientifically evaluated. This can then assist 

resource managers within all agencies in making informed decisions that promote sustainable 

development, adequately predict potential impacts and avoid, decrease or mitigate threats to our natural 

resources.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of existing valid leases. The 

designation of areas unavailable for leasing or available only with NSO stipulations is a form of phased 

development.

Comment: It cannot be emphasized enough the importance of incorporating cumulative and landscape or 

basin level evaluations to properly identify both ongoing and potential future development activities and 

associated impacts to wildlife, waters, fisheries, air, economics, communities, etc.

Response: Please see pages. 4-233 to 4-259. 

Comment: Item: Page 2-143, Section 2.5.5, Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management “Approximately 

175,750 acres in Intensively Developed Fields would be available for intensive fluid mineral leasing, 

exploration, development, and production; approximately 672,470 acres designated as Minimally 

Developed Areas would be available for restricted fluid mineral leasing, exploration, development, and 

production; about 205,100 acres would be designated as Large Block NSO Areas; and 156,900 acres 

would be designated as Unavailable Areas for leasing, exploration, development, and production” “The 

planning area would be divided into three distinct, noncontiguous, wildlife management zones for the 

purpose of oil and gas activities” Comment - While the above discussion clarifies that the management 

zones are intended to protect wildlife from oil and gas and specific mitigation guidelines and operating 

standards for each resource are presented in Appendix 3 and apply to each of the management areas. 

Overall, it is not clear how oil and gas development on existing leases will differ for these management 

areas. It is also unclear how operations on future leases will differ between the intensively and minimally 

developed areas.

Response: Information on existing leases in the oil and gas management areas has been added in the final 

EIS. More discussion on how the Intensively Developed and Minimally Developed Areas would work is 

Pinedale RMP A27-657 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

also provided. Please note that the term “Minimally Developed Areas” has been changed to “Traditional 

Leasing Areas” in the final EIS.

Comment: Paragraph 2, on pg 4-187, states “Surface disturbing activities associated with well pad 

construction would increase sediment delivers to stream and standing water systems, which would 

interfere with fish life stages.” The impacts analysis fails to acknowledge the USEPA and WDEQ/WQD 

regulations that require all surface disturbing activities greater than 1 acre to prepare and implement storm 

water pollution prevention plans specifically to keep this potential impact from occurring. Paragraph 3 

discusses evaporation ponds and the potential for waterfowl and shorebirds mortality as a result of being 

attracted to these facilities. It further states “This can be mitigated by making these areas less attractive to 

these birds.” The WOGCC rules require operating companies to implement mitigation to preclude birds 

from coming in contact with the materials held in these ponds.

Response: The EPA and WDEQ regulations help to minimize negative impacts but do not entirely 

eliminate the potential for impacts to occur. Disturbances of less than 1 acre are not covered by the Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) regulations yet still have impacts. The draft EIS is appropriate. 

Comment: The restrictions on development attributable to wildlife objectives under Alternative 3 are 

unnecessarily restrictive. In both Intensively Developed Fields and Minimally Developed Areas the BLM 

would unreasonably restrict development. For example, limiting vehicle use to existing roads and trails 

within even intensively developed fields is unreasonable and unnecessary, particularly if portions of those 

fields are currently undeveloped. Requiring NSO Stipulations within three miles of sage grouse leks is 

similarly unnecessary and conflicts with current BLM state-wide policy. Although the BLM intends to 

limit activities within sage-grouse winter concentration areas, the BLM has not mapped or identified such 

areas. 

By limiting wellpad densities to only one well per 640-acre section, the BLM would significantly reduce 

oil and gas development across the planning area. Limitations on the economic and technical feasibility of 

directional drilling would effectively eliminate oil and gas development in large areas of the Pinedale 

Resource Area. The limitations on development activities in big game habitat are unnecessary, and not 

supported by existing analysis. Development has, and can continue to be, conducted in big game habitat 

areas in such a way so as to protect wildlife resources, while still allowing domestic energy production. 

The proposed prohibitions on exceptions to seasonal stipulations minimally developed areas would 

deprive the BLM of the flexibility it requires. Although the BLM intends to deny exception requests in 

“source habitat” the BLM does not define or mop source habitats. 

Response: It is reasonable to analyze an alternative that would increase restrictions on oil and gas 

development. This designation is applied to prevent cross-country vehicle use during the sage-grouse 

nesting and brood-rearing season. The statement on page 2-70 intends to protect important sage-grouse 

habitats to the extent possible when developing access roads to new wells. Alternative 3 is the 

conservation alternative; all of the wildlife objectives were based on published scientific research 

conducted within the planning area. If this alternative were removed from this analysis, BLM would be 

violating NEPA and FLPMA. According to the following peer-reviewed scientific literature, the current 

restrictions are not adequate: Holloran, M. J., and S.H. Anderson, 2005, Spatial Distribution of Greater 

Sage-Grouse Nests in Relatively Contiguous Sagebrush Habitats, The Condor 107:742–752; Holloran, 

M.J., B.J. Heath, A.G. Lyon, S.J. Slater, J.L. Kuipers, S.H. Anderson, 2005, Greater sage-grouse nesting 

habitat selection and success in Wyoming, Journal of Wildlife Management 69(2): 638-649; Doherty, K. 

E., D. E. Naugle, B. L. Walker, and J. M. Graham. in press, Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection 

and energy development, Journal of Wildlife Management. Research conducted by Sawyer et al. 2006 on 

the Pinedale Anticline suggests winter habitat selection and distribution patterns of mule deer were 

affected by well pad development. Changes in habitat selection by mule deer appeared to be immediate 

A27-658 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

(i.e., year 1 of development), and through 3 years of development no evidence was found that suggested 

mule deer acclimated or habituated to well pads. Rather, mule deer had progressively higher probability 

of use in areas further away from well pads as development progressed. 

Comment: The adverse effects of routes on wildlife have been well documented in several extensive 

literature reviews (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Gucinski et al. 2001, Gaines et al. 2003, Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department 2004, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 2005, Confluence Consulting 

2005). The hundreds of scientific papers in these literature reviews illustrate the preponderance of 

evidence that routes ranging from narrow dirt tracks to paved roads can and do have adverse affects on 

wildlife. This volume of science simply cannot be ignored in a major land management planning effort 

such as this RMP.

Response: The impact analysis has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: The BLM’s management of Intensively Developed Fields and Minimally Developed Areas 

must be revised under Alternative 4. The BLM lacks the authority to impose mitigation measures on oil 

and gas leases that are not technically or economically feasible. See Conner V. Burford, 84 F.2d 1441, 

1449-50 (9th Cir. 1988); 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2 (2006) (BLM can impose only “reasonable mitigation 

measures . . . to minimize adverse impacts . . . to the extent consistent with lease rights granted”). There is 

no indication or analysis in the RMP DEIS whether many of the proposed objectives are technologically 

and economically feasible. For example, BLM’s requirement to minimize noise generating activity could 

be construed as requiring the imposition of significant mitigation measures, regardless of their feasibility.

Response: Page 2-8 states that oil and gas lease rights would be honored. This would apply to all 

alternatives. It is reasonable to require mitigation of activities that impact surface resources.

Comment: BLM provides us with no implementation plan to explain to the public how on-site mitigation 

and other programs will be carried out. With this implementation plan should first be a habitat 

assessment. Without a comprehensive overall inventory of habitat on Pinedale BLM lands, there can no 

comparison of existing baseline with proposed mitigation, enhancement, and reclamation projects. Project 

specific, habitat assessments constitute a piecemeal approach, when what is needed is on holistic 

approach. An overall assessment should include a comprehensive wildlife inventory, monitoring and 

protection plan for all wildlife species present in the field office area, an air quality monitoring and 

protection plan, a reclamation plan, a water shed quality and quantity monitoring protection plan for both 

surface and ground waters, and a hazardous materials management plan.

Response: BLM, WGFD, and several federal agencies are conducting projects and inventories to gain 

this information so that it may be applied to management scenarios, mitigation projects, etc. 

Comment: The draft plan that you have released contains a preferred Alternative No. 4 which does not 

adequately ensure the protection of our air, our wildlife, and our quality of life. In particular, your 

preferred Alternative No. 4 does not set aside enough habitat free from oil and gas development. It allows 

for development for as much as 70 percent of the one point two million acre resource area, and for 

thousands and thousands of more gas wells and associated industrial facilities. Such a development 

scenario will not sustain our herds of pronghorn, or mule deer, or the sage grouse.

Response: BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of existing, valid oil and gas leases. 

The areas that would be available for leasing have been reconsidered in the final EIS; please see the 

minerals management section of the Proposed Plan (Alternative 4 in the final EIS).

Pinedale RMP A27-659 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Comment: PAGE: 2-120, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: d. BMPs would be applied to mitigate impacts 

on sensitive habitats and other resources (Appendix 5) where appropriate and necessary [to the extent 

possible and practicable.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: The standard is not found in Gold Book and RMP 

cannot supercede national policy. The condition is undefined and thus very confusing. There is no 

definition of sensitive habitat. Nor is there a definition of “other resources.” So this ¶ as written would 

require mitigation for anything else without giving the public any idea of what was to be mitigated or the 

rationale.

Response: This objective was based on sensitive species habitat mitigation that is defined in BLM 

Manual 6840.

Comment: PAGE:2-143 SECTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGE:Delete: [a. The planning area would 

be divided into three distinct, noncontiguous, wildlife management zones for the purpose of oil and gas 

activities (Map 2-9) as follows: • Intensively Developed Areas (Map 2-9) would be managed for intensive 

oil and gas activities while protecting habitats and minimizing direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on 

the extent practicable.](strikeout) [• Minimally Developed Areas (Map 2-9) would be managed for 

protection of important values during oil and gas exploration but would provide opportunity for intensive 

oil and gas development. Should a discovery (development) be made and proceed to development, these 

lands would be moved to Intensively Developed Field status and would be subject to mitigation to 

minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of such activities.](strikeout) [• Large Block NSO 

Areas (Map 2-9) would be managed for protection of wildlife habitats through allowing oil and gas 

leasing with NSO stipulations.](strikeout) [• Unavailable Areas (Map 2-9) would be managed for 

protection of wildlife habitats through indefinite postponement of the availability of lands for oil and gas 

leasing.](strikeout) EXPLANATION:Oil and gas development is not based solely or primarily on wildlife 

habitat needs. Nor is there any evidence that the planning areas described correlate to the objective.

Response: It is reasonable to consider making certain areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing and listing 

wildlife habitat management needs as part of the rationale for this action.

Comment: PAGE: 2-147, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Large Block NSO Areas a. Fluid mineral 

leasing would be allowed within the Large Block NSO Areas, provided the entire lease area was 

encumbered by a NSO stipulation.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION:The large block NSO does not conform 

to accepted criteria for NSO, such as documenting the need to deny surface use due to slope, geological 

hazards, erosive soils, or designation of critical habitat. See Comment #26. As the DEIS makes clear, the 

NSO areas are intended to provide big game habitat, even though big game exceed or meet target 

populations that by themselves exceed habitat capacity by a significant extent. As implemented, it is in 

fact a withdrawal and should be designated as such. BLM must also look at interference with state trust 

land leases and other private rights. Finally, EPCA implementation direction requires BLM to more 

specifically document the basis for concluding that this is the least restrictive mitigation to be imposed.

Response: The Large Block NSO Areas have been removed from the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 2-148, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: i. Consistent with existing oil and gas lease 

terms, no [No] (strikeout) surface disturbing [or disruptive activities] (strikeout)would be permitted in big 

game crucial winter ranges from November 15 to April 30 (Map 3-19). EXPLANATION: See Comment 

#173.

Response: BLM holds the right to use new information and science to protect wildlife from undue and 

unnecessary degradation.

A27-660 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Comment: We oppose the idea that crucial habitats can be replaced through off-site mitigation. All 

mitigation should be applied on-site. We recognize the failure of the Pinedale Anticline Working Group 

(PAWL) to effectively mitigate wildlife habitat and population losses created by the oil and gas industry.

Response: Onsite mitigation is preferred to ensure the continued presence of wildlife in their primary 

habitats. BLM cannot require an entity to implement offsite mitigation. Offsite mitigation should only be 

viewed as a last resort method. It is generally not possible to replace habitats with offsite mitigation; 

however, in some instances offsite habitats in less than optimum condition can be enhanced to increase 

their carrying capacity.

Comment: Overall, the RMP must assure continued landscape-level function for fish and wildlife. This 

will require a Field Office-wide planning approach that considers both the current energy development 

scenario and the leases that allow further development, as well as future leasing and development 

potential. Energy development must be planned in such a way to allow continued persistence of welldistributed native wildlife habitat and wildlife populations throughout the term of the RMP. This will 

require phasing of development and the disturbances associated with it, both in space and in time, so that 

wildlife will have the habitat and area needed to persist in the Field Office area. Then, as energy 

development declines in the long term and reclamation becomes mature, wildlife can once again repopulate and re-distribute throughout their native habitats. This will allow the associated recreation that 

supports Wyoming’s second-leading industry of recreation/tourism to again provide its optimum benefits 

to the state.

Response: These recommendations can be found in Appendix 5, Fluid Mineral Best Management 

Practices, Reducing Impacts to Big Game Crucial Winter Range, Reducing Impacts to Sage-Grouse 

Habitat, and Reducing Impacts to Wildlife Habitat.

Comment: Three of the four alternatives under consideration would allow rapid expansion of natural gas 

drilling in the region. I’m worried that this would cause irreversible damage to the area’s quality of life, 

air quality and ability to support abundant wildlife - the very things that make the Upper Green a great 

place to live and visit. The air over the Upper Green has already been visibly affected by industrial 

pollution from existing gas rigs. Researchers have noticed significant declines in the mule deer herds and 

sage grouse populations that winter in the Upper Green. Tripling the number of gas wells over the next 

10-15 years would simply make the problems worse.

Response: All the alternatives would allow expansion of natural gas drilling in the region. BLM does not 

have the authority to prohibit development of existing, valid oil and gas leases. The draft EIS provides an 

appropriate discussion of the potential impacts on wildlife and other resources from development of these 

leases. The Preferred Alternative attempts to provide balanced management on a landscape scale, with 

certain areas unavailable for leasing and development. 

Comment: In closing, we believe that the BLM’s Preferred Alternative #4 is not sufficient to protect 

wildlife habitat in the project area, nor does it provide a balance between industry aims and natural 

resource values. This is clearly evident in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences (p. 4-210), which 

states that under Alternative 4, the BLM Preferred Alternative, “...wildlife habitat would generally only 

be protected if a mineral commodity is not present for extraction.”

Response: The Preferred Alternative provides for multiple uses on a planning area scale.

Comment: Chapter 2 Page 14 Commentor WGFD Appendix 11, Resource Monitoring Table, should 

include thresholds based on wildlife population trends identified by WGFD. 

Pinedale RMP A27-661 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

Response: Table A11-1 provides a guide for monitoring activities. Based on monitoring results, BLM 

will implement appropriate actions on a case-by-case basis. Generally, BLM decisions would be based on 

habitat conditions and not necessarily population trend data.

Comment: Changes in vegetation “quality” should be monitored at 3-5 year intervals at a statistically 

valid sampling rate along permanent 0.6-mile belt transects. Measurements desired include live sagebrush 

canopy cover, sagebrush height, and ground cover of native grasses and forbs. (This should also include 

measurement of residual grass height.) Modeling of the potential effects of environmental events such as 

drought (measured by the Palmer Drought Index) and severe winters (length of period of snow cover, 

depth of snow, temperature) should also be pursued.

Response: Currently, there is an effort to standardize vegetation monitoring data collection efforts. These 

suggestions should be brought to the committee involved in that effort for consideration.

Comment: Replicated studies with treatments and controls have not been conducted because of the 

difficulty in finding study areas of sufficient size, control of all treatments, and the reluctance of agencies 

and private interests to make available dedicated resources (including money and land). Management 

studies should be immediately implemented that focus on possible predation impacts as affected by 

fragmentation and livestock grazing impacts (Connelly et al. 2000). At a minimum, the Pinedale RMP 

DEIS should recognize the importance of habitat quality and the potential effects of enhanced predation 

caused by existing and planned treatments which negatively affect habitat quality of the sagebrush steppe.

Response: The effects of past treatments in terms of habitat structure and wildlife use are currently being 

studied. This information will be used in defining the course of future mitigation efforts on a landscape 

scale. 

Comment: Second, we know that development may have irreversible impacts on both. I propose that the 

BLM enforce a no-net-loss policy on wildlife and that the gas industry fund positions within the WY 

game and fish department to insure this. 

Response: This suggestion is not possible given BLM’s multiple use mandate and BLM’s purview 

related to wildlife management. BLM is not responsible for managing wildlife numbers, but rather 

manages wildlife habitat.

Comment: This million acre landscape managed under this RMP must provide future direction for 

protecting wildlife. The total new wells will equal 8,383 (7,136 federal and 1,247 non-federal). 

Approximately two-thirds of the projected wells would occur in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline fields. 

Clustering is a sacrifice zone where wildlife cannot thrive, they may hurry through or try to co-exist but 

the stress on the biological health will be demonstrated by low doe-calf, hen/chick ratios, weakened 

individuals and diminished herds/flocks. The Pinedale RA must find a scientifically based balance to 

provide places where wildlife can be secured within these so called sacrifice zones. WWA encourages the 

use of site-specific studies and current scientific literature to back up a brave new management plan with 

emphasis on wildlife protection. 

Response: The Unavailable Areas and NSO Areas are meant to provide secured habitats outside the 

Intensively Developed Fields. Current studies have shown that the existing development has exceeded the 

tolerance threshold for many species. The intent is to make areas unavailable for development to provide 

suitable habitats to sustain existing and displaced populations. 

Comment: Mitigation: The majority of mitigation for impacts to big game animals suggested in this 

document relies on restriction of anthropogenic activities during critical periods of the year. Based upon 

A27-662 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

the BLM’s track record of not upholding timing limitations in critical habitats I fail to see any scientific 

basis for the claims of the efficacy of this mitigation. For example, on the Pinedale Anticline, more than 

80% of requests for exemptions from timing limitations were granted (USDI BLM 2007). Furthermore, 

timing limitations do not protect habitat because disturbance may occur at other times of the year and 

limitations only apply during the development phase. Activity is not restricted during the production 

phase. The BLM should provide assurances that timing limitations for crucial big game habitats will be 

enforced and they should define exactly what is meant by development and production phases and what 

mitigation will be applied during these phases. Mitigation of all significant impacts occurring during all 

phases of development will be required if big game populations are to be maintained at desired levels.

Response: BLM cannot specify mitigation requirements at the RMP level because there are no 

development proposals for the entire planning area submitted. However, BLM can suggest types of 

mitigation that may be appropriate for different types of proposals. Seasonal restrictions do not protect 

wildlife habitats because the activities postponed are carried out in the next noncrucial season. When 

development reaches a density or other point where animals no longer use the habitats, seasonal 

restrictions do not provide any value.

Comment: Adaptive management is suggested as a form of mitigation. Essentially the BLM would 

implement “performance-based objectives and operating standards” that would provide flexibility to 

adapt decisions to changing and uncertain environmental conditions while assuring appropriate mitigation 

(page iv). Albeit adaptive management does allow flexibility, it is a planned program that relies on quick 

response to changing conditions suggested from analysis of accurate monitoring data. For big game 

animals this approach, as described in the DEIS, has at least three problems. First, as I will discuss below, 

monitoring suggested in the DEIS is inadequate. Secondly, there are no assurances of quick responses for 

habitat disturbances in an arid region where energy development is the chief perturbation. As Baker 

(2006) points out, recovery of sagebrush habitats is a slow process taking as long as 50 to 100 years. 

Thus, once habitats are lost, there is no quick way in which to replace them. Lastly, there is often a lag in 

population response time from an impact to a measured change in the population. This is problematic 

because a cause/effect relationship can be difficult to establish and, as discussed above, it takes so long to 

re-establish functional habitats. In short, it may be too late to remedy the situation once an impact has 

been measured. Additionally, the trigger suggested in the DEIS (a downward trend in animal numbers) is 

likely not sensitive enough to measure a population impact in time to initiate some remedial action. Thus, 

as portrayed in this document the adaptive management strategies suggested to facilitate mitigation will 

not work. 

Although there is a trigger suggested for adaptive management, a downward trend in big game 

populations on critical ranges, there are no actions depicted in response to the trigger being tripped. A 

change in the population trend is not the most sensitive trigger that could be applied. Changes in overwinter juvenile survival would be a better trigger that could be measured fairly precisely at a reasonable 

cost (White et al. 1987, Bartmann et al. 1992). The BLM should specify a more sensitive trigger for 

adaptive management to mitigate impacts to big game animals and indicate specifically what actions 

would be taken in response to the trigger being tripped.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Comment: The best way to mitigate impacts to big game animals from actions proposed in the DEIS 

would be to establish ACECs or some sort of special management areas strictly for the purpose of 

protecting crucial big game ranges (which might also include habitat for other wildlife species) with 

appropriate limitations on development and provisions to protect habitat. The BLM must provide a 

realistic consideration of mitigation of impacts to big game animals and their habitats indicating what 

Pinedale RMP A27-663 
Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat Final EIS 

sorts of actions will be taken to mitigate impacts and assure the public that adequate habitat is available to 

support populations albeit these populations may be at a reduced level.

Response: Mitigation can be applied effectively without establishing an ACEC. Effective mitigation 

should be practices throughout the planning area and not be limited though the use of ACECs and SMAs.

Comment: To be effective, mitigation measures like “making evaporation ponds for condensate water 

unattractive and or less accessible to waterfowl” (which are dying in their waters), need to be amended to 

say something like “levels of salt in evaporation pits will be reduced and limited through desalination 

processes, monitored monthly by an independent contractor, at the expense of the Operator, to maintain 

non-lethal concentrations of salinity for soil, groundwater and waterfowl safety, and fine wire mesh 

coverings will completely cover such pits to ensure wildlife and livestock accessibility is not possible.” 

Not once in the mitigation guidelines did I see a clear and binding plan of accountability which Operators 

must follow to ensure the safety and well being of the environment it will be degrading.

Response: This information has also been provided by USFWS, and the proper techniques will be 

implemented to ensure the MBTA will be adhered to. The final EIS has been updated to specify covering 

of pits and other sources of contaminated or harmful materials.

Comment: Evaluate the impact of roads on wildlife as part of an adaptive management process. Resource 

management plan revisions must assess these impacts and devise ways to mitigate them.

Response: These goals and actions can be found on pages 2-101 through 2-105.

Comment: The following objectives are necessary to propagate Sublette County wildlife populations as 

we have known them in the recent past. They include: 2. Crucial habitats should be protected during oil 

and gas production as well as during exploration and development stages.

Response: BMPs are being employed in the Intensively Developed Areas and the Minimally Developed 

Areas to protect crucial and other seasonal habitats. Please note that the term “Minimally Developed 

Areas” has been changed to “Traditional Leasing Areas” in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 4-188 SECTION: 4.17.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE In general, OHV 

management decisions that result in increased human presence may [would](STRIKEOUT) have a 

moderate, localized impact on wildlife [and fisheries. Impacts would include increased displacement of 

wildlife, increased stress during critical time periods, and degradation of habitats. OHV use can alter the 

seasonal use patterns of many wildlife species. The use of snow vehicles on winter range could lead to 

excessive wildlife disturbance, causing additional stress, more rapid depletion of fat (energy) reserves, 

and in extreme cases, death.](STRIKEOUT: New roads created from extensive use of OHVs could result 

in access to areas that normally do not contain human presence; habitat degradation through vegetation 

loss; [access for predator species,](STRIKEOUT) creating competition for species, such as Canada lynx; 

and soil compaction, may cause [causing](STRIKEOUT) accelerated erosion or preventing water 

infiltration. These impacts are localized to trails and may increase where OHV use is concentrated into 

two relatively small open areas. EXPLANATION: If BMPs in place, no impact on fisheries. RMP does 

not call for OHV across streams or rivers. Given high numbers of game animals and high demand for 

OHV recreation, no evidence supports this statement. Snow vehicles only cause stress if someone is 

chasing the animal and nothing in RMP calls for snowmobilers to chase wildlife. Predators do not need 

“access.”

Response: BMPs cannot be applied to OHV use, which is not a permitted activity; that is, anyone can 

operate an OHV without a permit from BLM. BLM is required to analyze impacts that can be reasonably 

A27-664 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

expected to occur from OHV use, which would be allowed in much of the planning area. Many existing 

roads cross streams and riparian areas. Different animals respond to vehicles in different ways; it is 

reasonable to reveal that OHV use, including snowmobile use, would cause stress to big game animals in 

the vicinity of the use. Phillips and Alldredge (2000) and Shively et al. (2005) demonstrated a 30% 

reduction in elk calf recruitment as a result of an activity as benign as simulated recreational hiking 

imposed during the calving season. Freddy et al. (1986) studied the impacts to wintering mule deer from 

people on foot and snowmobiles. Rowland et al. (2000 and 2005) provides a discussion of elk distribution 

in relation to roads, and Sawyer et al. (2007) discusses elk habitat selection in the Jack Morrow Hills of 

Wyoming and considers the impact of roads.

Comment: Pg 4-188, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 discuss the impacts of OHV management decisions on 

wildlife. This discussion should include an acknowledgement of the transportation planning and road use 

restrictions placed on oil and gas development activities in an effort to reduce the impacts of 

transportation systems on wildlife. The impacts described would still apply to recreational use of OHV.

Response: Transportation plans are developed at the EIS level; they are a tool that could have tremendous 

mitigation potential if used to the fullest extent possible. However, as seen with large developments such 

as the Jonah and Anticline fields, transportation pre-planning can only go so far. When the development 

potential is determined, road and pipeline corridors are dictated by where they are needed.

Comment: Implement road closure plans using the best available science to protect wildlife habitat 

needs. Include the latest species specific habitat needs for core area, disturbance effect zones around roads 

and well pads, and maximum route densities where available.

Response: Transportation plans are being developed at the EIS level. In addition, a road closure plan was 

developed and submitted in the Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 10, Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 

Notices. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management [WY–100–1110–PI] Notice of Seasonal 

Closure of Public Lands to Motorized Vehicle Use. Agency: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

Action: Notice of seasonal closure of certain public lands located in Sublette County, Wyoming, to all 

types of motor vehicle use and/or human presence.

Pinedale RMP A27-665 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

General Comment Responses: 

Comments: 

• As a United States citizen, I’m frustrated by continual attacks on land that was supposedly set 

aside for the sole purpose of protecting our natural heritage. Since this land is part of a National 

Park, I’m not sure why it’s being subjected to this kind of proposal in the first place. National 

Parks help make America what it is -- please stop your assault on them. 

• Please stay away from our National Parks. They are a treasure. Previous generations had the 

foresight to save them for us. Let’s be thoughtful and save them for our future generations. Let’s 

stop being greedy. We don’t have the moral right to destroy the remaining beautiful places of our 

nation, just to satisfy our energy hunger. Don’t drill; conserve!

Response: The Pinedale RMP will not allocate any uses in the National Parks. No National Parks are 

located within the planning area. BLM does not have the authority to manage the Pinedale planning area 

as part of the National Park system. 

Comments: 

• Pursuant to Alternative 3, the entire Trapper’s Point migration bottleneck is designated an area 

Unavailable for future leasing. Even under Alternative 4 most of it is designated as Unavailable 

for future leasing and the remainder is designated a Large Block NSO area. Maps 2-8, 2-9, 2-26, 

2-33. The ACEC is limited to the areas designated Unavailable ender either alternative; the Large 

Block NSO areas are not deemed suitable for ACEC designation pursuant to Alternative 4. Id. 

However, this differential treatment does not comport with the management goals established for 

these areas. The management emphasis in both the Unavailable areas given ACEC designation 

and the Large Block NSO area not afforded ACEC designation is to “provid[e] contiguous 

wildlife habitat, wildlife refuge areas and migration routes . . . .” 2-47, 2-49. Given there is no 

difference in management emphasis in these areas there can be no rational basis for designating 

the Unavailable Areas an ACEC while not designating the Large Block NSO areas an ACEC. 

Furthermore, the entire area meets the relevance and importance criteria. A4-3. Given this, the 

entire Trapper’s Point migration bottleneck should be designated an ACEC regardless of what 

alternative is selected as the RMP. The BLM recognizes this entire area is “a major funnel, or 

bottleneck, for mule deer and pronghorn in their winter migrations to and from winter range” and 

the area is threatened with constriction due to development, and contains very significant 

archeological sites. 3-136. Thus, maximum protection is required. 

• In addition to these three relatively large potential protected areas, a number of other areas would 

receive protection pursuant to Alternative 3, including the Upper Green River ACEC, New Fork 

Potholes ACEC, CCC Ponds ACEC, Boulder Lake Special Recreation Management Area, the 

Scab Creek Special Recreation Management Area, Green River and New Fork River Special 

Recreation Management Area, Beaver Creek ACEC, and the Rock Creek ACEC. These areas 

receive considerably less protection pursuant to Alternative 4, and/or much smaller areas are 

protected. All of these areas should be afforded the protections provided by Alternative 3. The 

Upper Green River ACEC (Special Recreation Management Area under Alternative 4) is located 

in an area that would be Unavailable for oil and gas leasing pursuant to Alternative 3 and in a 

Large Block NSO Area under Alternative 4. As noted several times above, given that the 

management objectives for Unavailable and Large Block NSO areas are exactly the same, the fact 

A27-666 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

this area is in a Large Block NSO Area under the provisions of Alternative 4 provides no 

justification for the lesser protection. The Upper Green River area is remote, stunning and of 

great recreational value. 3-54. The CCC Ponds and the New Fork Potholes are also located in 

areas that are devoted to environmental protection (Unavailable under Alternative 3 and Large 

Block NSO under Alternative 4). The CCC Ponds are recognized by the BLM as “a local 

recreation haven.” 3-137. The New Fork Potholes are recognized as a “unique subsection of the 

Wind River Front” due to the large number of glacial potholes, which attract abundant waterfowl 

and provide habitat for many other species of wildlife. 3-136. The New Fork Potholes area meets 

both the relevance and importance criteria for designation as an ACEC. A4-2. “The values in this 

area need special emphasis to be effectively managed.” Id. The Rock Creek ACEC is important 

for the protection of quality habitat for the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout and crucial winter 

range for elk, and the Beaver Creek ACEC serves similar crucial functions. 3-135. Both of these 

areas meet the relevance and importance criteria for designation as an ACEC. For these reasons 

all of these areas should receive the greater protections afforded by Alternative 3. 

• Likewise the entire Wind River Front should be given special management protection. Pursuant 

to Alternative 3, the entire Wind River Front is designated an Unavailable Area, and BLM’s 

corresponding designation of the entire Wind River Front as a special Management Area reflects 

this management emphasis. Maps 2-8, 2-26. In contrast, pursuant to Alternative 4 the northern 

half of the Wind River Front that is eliminated from special Management Area designation is 

assigned to a Large Block NSO Area. Maps 2-9, 2-33. Yet as noted above, the management 

emphasis in Large Block NSO Areas is exactly the same as the management emphasis in 

Unavailable Areas, so it is arbitrary to provide differing special area management designations in 

areas that are supposed to have the same management emphasis, one oriented toward 

environmental protection. 2-47, 2-49. This is especially true given that under the direction 

provided by the Pinedale Anticline EIS the entire, Wind River Front is afforded special 

protection. The BLM has provided no rationale, and thus acted arbitrarily, by specifying different 

management direction for the northern and southern half of this area when the stated management 

goal for the entire area is the same: the protection of environmental values, 2-47, 2-49, 

particularly since the entire area has been afforded special protection for some time now. In fact, 

the BLM recognizes this entire area contains “world-class” geological features, contains streams 

with Wild and Scenic Rivers values, important semi-primitive recreation opportunities, and 

“encompasses migration corridors for big game and for crucial winter ranges for moose, elk, and 

mule deer. It also supplies wintering and breeding habitats for sage grouse.” 3-136. See also Maps 

2-28,2-36, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, and 3-19. 

The Upper Green River Valley Coalition’s slide presentation provides considerable additional 

evidence as to why the entire Wind River Front should be given special Management Area 

designation. The entire area is a highly important, and well documented, migration corridor. CD 

slides 8, 9, 26, and 27. Wetlands and riparian areas occur throughout the Wind River Front. CD 

slide 28. It is a very important aquifer recharge area. CD slide 29. Much of it has steep slopes 

making surface disturbance inappropriate. CD slide 30. The area has extremely high vertebrate 

species richness. CD slide 34. Clearly the existing management direction that the entire Wind 

River Front should not be available for leasing should be maintained, and this area should be 

deemed Unavailable for leasing, and all of it should be afforded special protection. 

Finally, we would note that the BLM determined this entire area met both the relevance and 

importance criteria for designation as an ACEC. A4-4. Having made that determination, the BLM 

was required to designate this entire area an ACEC. The basis for this claim will be elaborated on 

below. Instead, however, the BLM simply asserted with no supporting analysis whatsoever that 

“[i]t was determined that management actions other than ACEC designation are more appropriate 

Pinedale RMP A27-667 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

to protect the values.” Id. This bald assertion does not justify the BLM’s refusal to designate this 

area as an ACEC.

Response: BLM analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives regarding establishing ACECs) protecting 

special areas.

Comments: 

• PAGE:2-153, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete all existing and proposed ACECs. 

EXPLANATION: Due to the failure to address need for protection none of the proposed ACECs 

or existing ACECs qualify. 

• The Miller Mountain Management Area should receive the increased protection that would be 

afforded pursuant to Alternative 3-particularly designation as an area unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing-for the following reasons: 

• A significant portion of the area, particularly the western portion, is not currently leased, giving 

the BLM an unusual opportunity to protect an area from the impacts of potential oil and gas 

development without having to deal with the issues that are created after an area is leased. Map 1-

3. And as noted above, this could present opportunities for meaningful and effective off-site 

mitigation due to development elsewhere. 

• There is also little existing oil and gas development in the area. Map 3-5, CD slide 35. The area 

has only a low potential for oil and gas development. Map 4-1. 

• As recognized on page 3-136 of the RIvIP DEIS the area has numerous significant environmental 

values, including remoteness, a high quality visual environment that is an extension of the Lake 

Mountain Wilderness Study Area, crucial elk habitats, Canada lynx habitat, high value as a 

popular hunting area, potential Colorado River Cutthroat Trout habitat, significant riparian and 

stream habitats, and a rich cultural history, including historic Fort Hill. 

• The area is intended to be a right-of-way exclusion area pursuant to both Alternatives 3 and 4, 

which may be difficult to accomplish if the area does not receive the full protection afforded by 

Alternative 3. Maps 2-24 and 2-32. 

• The area contains a significant array of varying plant communities. Map 3-11. 

• The entire area is mule deer winter/yearlong range. Map 3-16. 

• As noted, the area contains extensive areas of crucial elk ranges. Maps 3-17, 3-19, and 3-20. 

For these reasons, the Miller Mountain area should receive the enhanced protection afforded by 

Alternative 3. We would note, however, that the BLM simply asserts that the area did not meet 

the ACEC importance criteria. A4-2. Absent some explanation as to how this determination was 

made-and an opportunity for the public to comment on this determination-there is no rational 

basis presented in the RMP DEIS for not designating this area an ACEC. We ask that such an 

explanation and opportunity for public comment be provided, and that absent such the area be 

designated an ACEC.

Response: The ACEC relevance and importance reviews are available on the RMP website at 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents/PinedaleBLM_ACEC_Evaluation_Report.pdf. BLM 

analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives regarding establishing ACECs and protecting special areas.

A27-668 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Comments: 

• We recognize that the BLM’s ACEC designation will not be used for all critical and relevant 

areas in the Field Office area. In order for areas that do have high value for fish and wildlife to be 

managed with those values appropriately recognized, we recommend that a SRMA (or other 

appropriate) designation be used instead. The specific areas we recommend for designation are 

outlined in the attached Comment Form. This would provide additional protection and help offset 

the uncertainties of being able to assure habitat functions in the Oil and Gas Management Areas. 

• Chapter 2 Page 154 Commentor WGFD In addition to the 4,960 acres designated as the Rock 

Creek ACEC, we recommend an additional 20,030 acres be designated as the Rock Creek 

SRMA. This would allow specific management measures for the benefit of wildlife to be 

included in the RMP. Chapter 2 Page 154-155 Commentor WGFD In addition to the 3590 acres 

designated as the Beaver Creek ACEC, we recommend an additional 3590 acres be designated as 

the Beaver Creek SRMA. This would allow specific management measures for the benefit of 

wildlife to be included in the RMP. Chapter 2 Page 155 Commentor WGFD In addition to the 

4160 acres designated as the Trapper’s Point ACES, we recommend an additional 4160 acres be 

designated as the Trapper’s Point SRMA. This would allow specific management measures for 

the benefit of wildlife to be included in the RMP. Chapter 2 Page 164 Commentor WGFD For 

Alternative 4, in addition to the 1040 acres designated as CCC Pond SRMA, we recommending 

adding an additional 4,490 acres. This would allow specific management measures for the benefit 

of wildlife to be included in the RMP. Chapter 2 Page 164 Commentor WGFD For Alternative 4, 

we recommend adding 12,270 acres that will be designated as the Upper Green River SRMA. 

This would allow specific management measures for the benefit of wildlife to be included in the 

RMP.

Response: It is not necessary to establish SRMAs, which are recreation-focused, to conduct specific 

management for the benefit of wildlife. 

Unique Comments: 

Comments on Document/Comments on Analysis/Suggested Changes 

Comment: The flaws of the Pinedale RMP and Preferred Alternative 4 are vast. When I look at the 

ACECs proposed but not considered (p. 2-4), I am confused with just what IS considered to meet the 

‘importance criteria’. The Mesa encompassing the largest remaining populations and most intact habitat 

for sage grouse in the Western U.S.; La Barge Elk winter Range, proposed as a “control for the study of 

the spread of disease on elk feed-grounds,” when brucellosis is on of the top threats to the livestock 

industry: Muddy Creek as “crucial winter range for one of two elk herds wintering on native winter 

range,” when the elk feeding program is under such scrutiny; and the Wind River Front providing winter 

and transitional ranges, migration bottlenecks and migration routes that are “some of the largest and 

longest in the world,” all missed the cut. None of these areas meet the “importance criteria” as having 

“more than locally significant qualities which give it special worth, consequence. meaning, 

distinctiveness and cause for concern” or as having “qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, 

sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened or vulnerable to adverse 

change.” How ignorant is the public presumed to be to believe this double-speak? The dismissal of these 

ACECs are in DIRECT conflict with the criteria standards which are meant to define them. Given the 

relatively small area which they comprise, and the importance of these lands, I believe that all nine 

ACECs should be implemented and then adhered to for comprehensive exclusion from future 

development. not merely cast aside to be reevaluated later, at the BLM’s discretion.

Pinedale RMP A27-669 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Response: ACEC status of itself is just a label and would not provide any protection to wildlife migration 

corridors. Meaningful protection would have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to 

achieve desired results. This protection can be implemented without creating these large ACECs. 

Management of wildlife habitats was conducted in the planning area as a cohesive whole, not limited to 

ACEC areas.

Comment: 2. Page 3-135 & 3-136: The process used to identify and evaluate potential new ACEC’s is 

confusing. On pages 3-135 &136 two existing ACEC’s are identified. These are followed by a list of six 

other areas with unique resources which appear to be candidate ACEC’s or other special management 

areas. However, not all six of these areas are specifically addressed and evaluated in Appendix 4, so it is 

unclear if they meet the designation criteria. In addition, several other areas not listed in Chapter 3 are 

evaluated in Appendix 4. Please clarify how areas were selected for evaluation as ACEC’s or SMA’s. 

Response: The language describing the ACEC process has been clarified in the final EIS. Five of the six 

proposed ACECs found in Chapter 3 are indeed included in Appendix 4 (Table A4-1). The proposed 

ACEC covering CCC Ponds was mistakenly omitted from Appendix 4. This ACEC has been included in 

the appendix in the final EIS. Other areas in Appendix 4 are discussed in Section 2.2.2. As stated on page 

A4-4, further information on each of the area’s qualifications under the relevance and importance criteria 

is available at the Pinedale Field Office and on the project website at www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale. 

Comment: 3. Page 3-135 and Appendix 4. By definition, ACEC’s “contain one or more resources that 

require special management and protection for maintaining the value of the resource and the area”. Their 

designation and special management is necessary to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important 

historic, cultural, and scenic values; for protecting fish or wildlife resources or other natural systems or 

processes. To be eligible for designation as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance 

criteria described in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613. Appendix 

4 summarizes the results of ACEC evaluations. Three areas (Ross Butte, White-tailed Prairie Dog, and 

Wind River Front) that meet both the relevance and importance criteria are then not recommended for 

inclusion as ACEC’s. What is the rationale for why these three areas are better suited to other 

management?

Response: For areas that meet the relevance and importance criteria for establishment as ACECs, BLM is 

required to consider the ACEC proposal in at least one alternative of the EIS, but is not required to 

establish the ACECs if management of the special resources present can be accomplished without ACEC 

status. ACEC status of itself is just a label and would not provide any protection to resources. Meaningful 

protection would have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to achieve desired results. 

This protection can be implemented without creating these large ACECs. See the management 

prescriptions for the Ross Butte and Wind River Front areas on page 2-156 (draft EIS) and prairie dog 

habitats on page 2-149 (draft EIS).

Comment: Map 2-33 Comment - Shows the Wind River Front Management Area as extending all the 

way to Highway 191, thereby removing whole townships from any sort of development activities. Even 

though there appears to be some areas of private and leased mineral ownership in this area (Map 1-3), 

BLM should consider revising the boundary of the MA to open more lands for development. This could 

be done in such a manner so that the unique features of the Wind River Front, as described on page 3-136, 

would be preserved.

Response: The Wind River Front Management Area covers this area in order to protect important 

sagebrush habitats for sage-grouse lekking, nesting, and brood rearing and to protect important mule deer 

and pronghorn migration and seasonal habitats. Potential for oil and gas development in this area is low, 

A27-670 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

and undisturbed, landscape-scale sagebrush habitats are needed in areas other than the Jonah and 

Anticline gas fields to provide habitats for sagebrush-dependent wildlife species.

Comment: the BLM’s own analysis demonstrates that the “expanded” Beaver Creek ACEC does not 

meet the importance criteria. See RDMP DEIS, Appd. 4, pg. A4-2. As such, the BLM cannot expand the 

Beaver Creek ACEC and certainly should not impose NSO stipulations on any new leases within the area. 

Response: All proposed ACECs must be addressed in the EIS. The Beaver Creek expansion area ACEC 

was not considered in detail in the draft EIS and not included in any of the alternatives because it did not 

meet the ACEC relevance and importance criteria. It is reasonable to evaluate the impacts of NSO 

stipulations on new leases in the existing Beaver Creek ACEC. NSO stipulations would not apply to the 

area under the Preferred Alternative.

Comment: Chapter 2 Page 154 Commentor WGFD Alternative 4. Objective 2 Action b. Include with 

NSO stipulations. 

Response: The Beaver Creek ACEC is fully leased for oil and gas and has been developed. It is not 

possible to add NSO restrictions at this point.

Comment: Chapter 2 Page 154 Commentor WGFD Alternative 4. Objective 2 Action f. Change percent 

slope to 15%.

Response: The soils in the Beaver Creek area are not highly erosive to the extent that a restriction of 

activities to areas of less than 15% slope is necessary.

Comment: PAGE: 2-21 SECTION: 2.4.4 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Reassess merit of retaining 

Beaver Creek and Rock Creek ACECs. EXPLANATION: RMP fails to reassess the merit of retaining 

Rock Creek and Beaver Creek in ACEC Report. BLM planning handbook, H-1601-1, Appendix C, p. 18 

requires this.

Response: The draft EIS analyzes eliminating the Rock Creek and Beaver Creek ACECs in Alternative 2, 

which can be compared to the analysis included in the other alternatives to make the determination of 

whether to retain these ACECs.

Comment: Alternative 3 creates far too many Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (“ACECs”) and 

other special management areas, including several ACEC which the BLM itself has determined do not 

meet the required relevance and importance criteria. See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.7-2 (2006). For example, the 

BLM’s own analysis demonstrates that the Ross Butte Area should not be managed as an ACEC. See 

RDMP DEIS, Appd. 4, pg. A4-3. As such, the BLM should not designate the Ross Butte ACEC and 

certainly should not designate the area unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

Response: No area that did not meet the relevance and importance criteria was included for analysis as an 

ACEC in any alternative. The Ross Butte area met the relevance and importance criteria for ACEC and is 

considered in Alternative 3; however, it would not be managed as an ACEC under the Preferred 

Alternative. The ACEC relevance and importance reviews are available on the RMP website at 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents/PinedaleBLM_ACEC_Evaluation_Report.pdf. BLM 

analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives regarding ACEC establishment and protections of special 

areas.

Comment: PAGE:2-154, SECTION:Rock Creek ACEC, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE 

[Objective 1 Provide suitable habitat within the Rock Creek ACEC to ensure long-term species 

Pinedale RMP A27-671 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

sustainability and functioning habitats and support the CAS for CRCT in the States of Colorado, Utah, 

and Wyoming. Ensure crucial elk winter ranges are available for use by wintering elk.] (strikeout) 

EXPLANATION: Delete due to lack of evidence of need. BLM fails to identify existing land uses that 

threaten the CAS for CRCT. Similarly, given all of the other terms and conditions on elk winter range 

BLM cannot prove that existing land uses threaten elk range. There is no mineral development that 

threatens either habitat. Area simply does not qualify.

Response: BLM analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives regarding ACEC establishment and 

protections of special areas. The ACEC relevance and importance reviews are available on the RMP 

website: http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents/PinedaleBLM_ACEC_Evaluation_Report.pdf. 

The ACEC Evaluation Report covers the reasonableness of maintaining the Rock Creek ACEC.

Comment: PAGE:2-160 TO 163, SECTION: Table 2-25, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise to 

reflect above comments and necessary revisions or deletions.

Response: This table has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE:2-191 to 2-203, SECTION: Table 2-34, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise to 

reflect above comments and necessary revisions or deletions.

Response: This table has been updated in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 3-102, SECTION: 3.12.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete or better document 

and move to special management areas EXPLANATION: BLM planning manual does not call for 

“sensitive areas.” Any such discussion should be deleted or moved to special management areas

Response: The text is appropriate as presented in Chapter 3 of the draft EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 3-135, SECTION: 3.18.1, EXPLANATION: Discussion of existing ACECs confirms 

conclusion that BLM never showed that protection of unique resources was necessary.

Response: Chapter 3 contains a discussion of the current status of the planning area. As such, only 

current ACECs are discussed in this section.

Comment: PAGE: 3-135, SECTION: 3.18.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete Ross Butte 

Ecosystem EXPLANATION: Area is incorrectly described as roadless. There are a number of roads in 

the area, in large part due to the development in the area.

Response: The area is described as “virtually roadless”. There are few roads and they are bad. The area is 

not currently developed.

Comment: PAGE: 3-136, SECTION: 3.18.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise for accuracy: Miller 

Mountain. This [ecosystem] (strikeout) is a [remote roadless ] (strikeout) landscape consisting of steep 

foothills with a combination of sagebrush, aspen, and conifer vegetation types. This area is adjacent to [an 

extension] (strikeout) of the Lake Mountain WSA viewshed and contains VRM Class II inventory values. 

It is identified as elk parturition and crucial winter range, contains lynx analysis units, and is widely used 

for big game hunting. It also contains potential CRCT habitat in Miller and Coal Creeks. Numerous small 

perennial streams and [sensitive] (strikeout) riparian habitats occur throughout the area. The area offers 

recreational opportunities for semiprimitive motorized activities. Miller Mountain is rich in cultural 

history and includes an ancient pictograph site, historic Ft. Hill, and more recent stone sheepherder cairns 

that signified range boundaries. EXPLANATION: The significant mix of private and state land precludes 

A27-672 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

the description of ecosystem. The area is not roadless, because there are roads to each of the private land 

parcels and the roads are also widely used by recreationists, especially hunters. Riparian areas are not any 

more “sensitive” than other riparian areas in the planning area. Area is almost entirely leased and cannot 

be managed for VRM Class II notwithstanding initial inventory. Management must be VRM Class III to 

meet BLM Handbook and IBLA decisions. See Comment #50. Fort Hill is located on private land? 

Sheepherder cairns often mistaken for modern day camp sites.

Response: Ecosystems can be described regardless of their ownership. There are very few roads. The 

description in the final EIS has been changed to say “largely roadless”. The riparian areas in the Miller 

Mountain area are more sensitive than in many other portions of the planning area because of their 

dependence on vegetation for physical stability of the system. Oil and gas leases cover less than half the 

area and do not negate the possibility of special management. The presence of oil and gas leases does not 

eliminate the option of management with VRM Class II objectives. Fort Hill is entirely on BLMadministered public lands in section 12, T25N, R115W and section 7, T25N, R114W. Because this area is 

on the “sheep side” of Deadline Ridge, and because the Slate Creek sheep trail traversed part of the area, 

it is known that much historic sheep grazing occurred. The authenticity of the sheepherder cairns has been 

verified. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-161, SECTION: 4.13.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE The Miller 

Mountain Management Area would put limitations on [general surface disturbance] (STRIKEOUT) and 

travel, [which would limit development of range improvements in this area and protect vegetation from 

disturbance associated with vehicle use.] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Limiting range improvements 

is not sound management.

Response: BLM disagrees with the suggested text change. This section is an analysis of the impacts of 

the alternative, not a statement of what the actions and limitations are. It reveals that an impact of 

limitations on surface disturbance could be limiting the ability to construct range improvement projects.

Comment: PAGE: 4-161, SECTION: 4.13.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE These SMA 

management actions would reduce surface disturbance and serve to maintain and protect vegetation 

resources within these areas. Limits on management such as vegetation treatment and range projects will 

reduce protection of vegetation.

Response: BLM disagrees that limits on surface-disturbing activities in these areas would reduce 

protection of vegetation. In fact, limitations on range improvements and other surface-disturbing activities 

in some areas would protect vegetation resources. Improvements would not be prohibited in these areas, 

but would be required to conform to the management objectives of the SD/MA.

Comment: PAGE: 4-212 SECTION: 4.18.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [Although areas 

considered or proposed for withdrawal would require approval by Congress, this analysis assumes the 

area would be approved and withdrawn.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Statement inaccurate.

Response: In order to analyze the impact of the proposal, BLM made the assumption that proposed 

withdrawals would be processed and withdrawn. It would make no sense, and would provide no basis for 

comparison of alternatives, to assume that proposed withdrawals would not be completed.

Comment: PAGE: G-14 CHANGE: NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (W&SR) – A system 

of [nationally](STRIKEOUT) congressionally designated rivers with watersheds or shorelines essentially 

primitive and waters unpolluted. EXPLANATION: The national wild and scenic rivers system is 

comprised of rivers designated by Congress; 16 U.S.C.§ 1273(a); or nominated by the state legislature 

and approved by the Secretary.

Pinedale RMP A27-673 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Response: This change has been made in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-22 CHANGE: SPECIAL AREA DESIGNATIONS - A title conferred on a specific 

area through [a variety of mechanisms, especially](STRIKEOUT) the land use planning process. 

EXPLANATION: Special area designations may only be identified through the land use planning 

process. BLM Land-Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Appendices C and F.

Response: This change has been made in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: G-25 CHANGE: WILDERNESS AREA. A congressionally designated area defined 

by the Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. § 1131(a), as [of](STRIKEOUT) undeveloped federal land 

retaining its primeval character. . . EXPLANATION: Definition needs to refer to the statutory origin of 

the term wilderness area.. In addition, the inclusion of the definition in the glossary is surplusage given 

that BLM does not manage any wilderness areas in Wyoming.

Response: This change has been made in the final EIS. Because many commenters assume that there is 

wilderness in the planning area, it is appropriate to include this definition for clarity. 

Comment: PAGE: G-25 CHANGE: WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA) – Areas designated under 

Section 603 of FLPMA and evaluated by Congress [under study](STRIKEOUT) for possible inclusion as 

a Wilderness Area in the National Wilderness Preservation System. EXPLANATION: The definition is 

insufficient and needs to link WSA designations with the FLPMA Sec. 603 wilderness review, 43 U.S.C. 

§ 1782.

Response: This change has been made in the final EIS. 

Comment: PAGE: SECTION: 4.18.3 Beaver Creek RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: 

See Comment Ch. 2-201. Not allowed to do fuel treatments in VRM Class I. Previous ACEC designation 

did not preclude geophysical exploration. Parturition habitat for elk not significant at national level to 

qualify area for ACEC. 

Response: Fuel treatments can be conducted in VRM Class I areas. Special management for areas 

retained in the RMP revision is not limited to management actions included in the 1988 RMP ROD. 

Resources need to be significant regionally, not nationally. The resources in concert in this area meet the 

relevance and importance criteria. The ACEC relevance and importance reviews are available on the 

RMP website at: 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents/PinedaleBLM_ACEC_Evaluation_Report.pdf. 

BLM analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives regarding ACEC establishment and protections of 

special areas. 

Comment: Page:2-156, Section: Wind River Front, Recommended Change: DELETE [Objective 7 

Maintain and improve wildlife habitats; big game migration corridors and bottlenecks; scenic quality; and 

recreation values and uses in the Wind River Front area.] (strikeout). Explanation: Wind River Front area 

needs to be withdrawn for the U.S. Air Force in accordance with FLPMA. Any withdrawal needs to 

address the extent of private land in the area. As proposed, it does not follow appropriate procedures. If 

the area is needed for defense purposes, it must be withdrawn. Comment #89. The boundaries should be 

defensible and not include private land and thus effect inverse condemnation. 

Scope of area arbitrary given the private land and interests in land affected. Propose to allow geophysical 

exploration when no leasing allowed, which is inconsistent. Wildlife corridors are primarily on private 

A27-674 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

land, so classification cannot apply to private land. Management restrictions inversely condemn existing 

leases and private minerals. 

Response: BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the RMP. BLM 

decisions do not apply to lands that the BLM does not administer. Maps in the Final EIS have been 

updated to illustrate the area more clearly with respect to land ownership. Wildlife movement corridors 

are well documents and cross private, state, and BLM-administered lands. 

Comment: Page: 3-136, Section: 3.18.2, Recommended Change: Wind River Front. The 244,067 acre 

land area identified for the Wind River Front consists of about 50% private land and state school sections. 

This landscape was formed by Pleistocene glacial events that formed world-class geologic features, 

including terminal and lateral moraines and potholes. Unique to this landscape are huge boulders 

randomly scattered across a backdrop of rolling sagebrush foothills. Several streams intersect this area 

with Wild and Scenic River (WSR) values, including three that meet the criteria for inclusion as WSR 

segments (see related section below). Semiprimitive motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities 

include hunting, rock climbing, wilderness trailheads, sightseeing, antler hunting, hiking, mountain 

biking, and fishing. The Wind River Front, which lies in the foreground of the Bridger Wilderness and its 

Class I airshed, encompasses migration corridors for big game and for crucial winter ranges for moose, 

elk, and mule deer. It also supplies wintering and breeding habitats for sage-grouse. The area also 

represents the homes of ranchers and their grazing allotments. Explanation: At least half of the land 

within the purported boundary is private surface and school sections. BLM has no jurisdiction and it must 

grant access to allow landowners to enjoy their land rights, thus greatly limiting BLM authority to impose 

restrictive management. The WSRA study failed to follow BLM Handbook criteria and thus any 

conclusions regarding alleged WSRA values are fatally flawed. See Comment #199. An RMP cannot be 

an order establishing, modifying, or revoking a withdrawal. Rather, a withdrawal requires action in accord 

with 43 U.S.C. § 1714. Resource Associates of Alaska, 114 IBLA 216, 219(1990). This is precisely why 

BLM followed FLPMA’s withdrawal procedures in proposing to modify the 55 acres of public land 

originally withdrawn near Boulder, Wyoming for the purpose a weather station which appears to be 

Detachment 489. In the Federal Register notice, 1 BLM proposed changing the purpose of the withdrawal 

to a seismological site and proposed continuing the existing withdrawals for an additional 5-year period. 

51 Fed. Reg. 1859 (1986). 2 The withdrawals were made by Public Land Order Nos. 3389 (29 Fed. 

Reg.6323), 3775 (30 Fed. Reg. 10193 (1965), and 4576 (34 Fed. Reg. 1141 (1969) and closed the lands to 

surface entry and mining, and 52 acres were also closed to mineral leasing. Id. No final action may have 

been taken because according to BLM in the draft Pinedale RMP, the detachment was closed in 1986 due 

to funding issues. In establishing the proposed buffer, therefore, BLM must abide by the same procedures. 

This includes determining the existing and potential demand for the land and its resources, an inventory 

of the site’s natural resource values, impacts on the land users, an investigation of suitable alternative 

sites, and a report on the existence of mineral deposits. A withdrawal also requires public notice and 

hearing, and consultation with state and local governments. 43 U.S.C. §§ 1714(c)(1)-(12), (h); 43 C.F.R. 

Parts 2300, 2310. 

Response: See page 1-9 of the DEIS: “The planning decisions in the RMP will apply only to the BLMadministered public land surface and mineral estate in the planning area, including BLM-administered 

minerals that underlie nonfederal lands (split estate).” Nowhere in the DEIS does BLM attempt to make 

management decisions for lands it does not manage. These issues are addressed in the suitability analysis 

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Review Report completed in 2002 and referenced in Appendix 24. The 

report is available at www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/. The suitability analysis was completed, based on 

the 13 determination factors contained in BLM-M-8351 Section .33. BLM would provide reasonable 

access to all private lands. BLM is not effectuating a withdrawal but making a land use decision in the 

RMP 

Pinedale RMP A27-675 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Yellowstone and Surrounding Area 

Comment: I spent some of the best time of my life working in Yellowstone NP and if I had anything to 

do with it NOTHING would change from then...and people would have to be tested for appropriate level 

of concern for the environment before they were allowed IN!

Response: The Pinedale RMP will not allocate any uses in the National Parks. No National Parks are 

located within the planning area.

Comment: Please reconsider this raping of the land for a relatively meager amount of natural resources. 

If you can do this to Yellowstone, the cornerstone of the National Park System, then, I suppose, you will 

feel that you have license to exploit other National Parks.

Response: The Pinedale RMP will not allocate any uses in the National Parks. No National Parks are 

located within the planning area.

Comment: It is important to keep our remaining wildlife habitats a priority for future generations. 

Yellowstone National Park is a park that I am proud of and this Nation should be proud of. I don’t want 

this pristine National Park ruined. Please find an alternative.

Response: The Pinedale RMP will not allocate any uses in the National Parks. No National Parks are 

located within the planning area.

Comment: I am concerned for the Yellowstone Wilderness and its wild life. 

Response: There are no wilderness areas designated by Congress within the Pinedale BLM planning area. 

In the two small existing wilderness study areas, no oil and gas leasing or drilling would be permitted. 

Comment: Please be much more cautious in your approach to opening wilderness to such pollution. 

THere are very few places where the sky is clean. Please don’t let Yellowstone lose its clean sky and 

environment. 

Response: No wilderness areas are present in the planning area. There are two small wilderness study 

areas. No decisions opening these areas to any surface disturbing uses are considered in the EIS.

Comment: There should be consideration of possible adverse effects on the wilderness experience in 

surrounding areas. This project is close to Grand Teton National Park and the Bridger-Teton Wilderness.

Response: Consideration of impacts to surrounding areas is included in the Cumulative Impacts analysis 

in Section 4.19.

Protection of Lands, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

Comment: We do not need more oil and gas wells in this region. Just because this is beneficial to the 

leaders of our country does not make it beneficial to the citizens and voters. It is imperative to protect the 

wilderness not only for recreation and wildlife, but also for 1] future generations to enjoy; 2] create a 

better environment for more healthy living; 3] cleaner air and water; 4] preserving trees to generate more 

oxygen; 5] the trees and ground cover also maintain the rainfall and thus water supply for the area.

Response: There are no wilderness areas designated by Congress within the Pinedale BLM planning area. 

In the two small existing wilderness study areas, no oil and gas leasing or drilling would be permitted.

A27-676 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Comment: I am terribly concerned that we will never be able to recover what we destroy if serious 

management steps are not carried out. Animal depletion in that area is already evident from the current 

drilling, if careful consideration and planning is not met the decline will continue. Please safe what we 

have left, I understand we need fuel but these beautiful places should not suffer for our lack of 

consideration for when they are gone we will surely be sorry.

Response: BLM is using the best available wildlife population and habitat monitoring data. It is true that 

some declines in wildlife populations could occur due to other land uses. Mitigations and best 

management practices included in the RMP are intended to maintain viable wildlife populations.

Comment: Although I well understand the need for gas drilling to satisfy some of our energy needs, we 

must also be mindful that lands like the Upper Green Rivery Valley have been set aside as public trust 

and must be protected as part of that trust. 

Response: BLM-administered lands in the Pinedale planning area, except for two small wilderness study 

areas, have not been permanently set aside from any use by any past decisions. The revised RMP EIS 

considers making some portions of the planning area unavailable for some uses, such as oil and gas 

leasing.

Comment: Future generations will benefit much more from this areas preservation than its destruction.

Response: The RMP EIS considers all impacts and benefits that would result from both consumption 

uses and preservation.

Comment: support the use of gas as a cleaner burning, domestically produced fuel. !0,000 well in the 

wilderness is too many. Don’t quibble about legal status of land, the land IS Wilderness which we need 

for clean water and stable wild life populations. 

Response: No wilderness areas are present in the planning area. There are two small wilderness study 

areas. No decisions opening these areas to any surface disturbing uses are considered in the EIS.

Comment: “Alternative 3”, with modifications is a much more sustainable option. The BLM needs to 

protect all nine areas proposed for ACEC designation, as well as maintain and strengthen seasonal drilling 

stipulations, tighten exemptions to stipulations and set thresholds for wildlife impacts that would restrict 

development. 

Response: To the extent that these decisions are within the scope of the RMP, they are covered in the 

alternatives (for example, larger buffers for sage-grouse nesting).

Comment: While the draft plan recognizes the crucial role that the Upper Green River Valley plays in 

providing habitat for the area’s outstanding wildlife and protects land around Trapper’s Point as an Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), it stops short of fully protecting the abundant wildlife and 

clean air that make the area so extraordinary. The BLM needs to go further and ensure protection of all 

nine areas proposed for ACEC designation. Furthermore the BLM should strengthen seasonal drilling 

stipulations, tighten exemptions to stipulations, and set high thresholds for minimal wildlife impacts that 

would restrict development. 

Response: To the extent that these decisions are within the scope of the RMP, they are covered in the 

alternatives (for example, larger buffers for sage-grouse nesting).

Pinedale RMP A27-677 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Comment: We also want BLM to protect the two WSAs (Lake Mountain and Scab Creek) and prohibit 

any ORV travel within them. 

Response: All alternatives in the EIS acknowledge continuation of the WSAs, which BLM does not have 

the power to eliminate. Two alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, would close the WSAs to all 

OHV use. 

Comment: Alternative 3 creates far too many Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (“ACECs”) and 

other special management areas, including several ACEC which the BLM itself has determined do not 

meet the required relevance and importance criteria. See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.7-2 (2006). For example, the 

BLM’s own analysis demonstrates that the “expanded” Beaver Creek ACEC does not meet the 

importance criteria. See RDMP DEIS, Appd. 4, pg. A4-2. The BLM has also not adequately justified or 

analyzed the significant size of the special recreation management areas proposed under Alternative 3. 

APC owns leasehold acreage (private and federal) that could be impacted by the BLM’s proposed 

management in these areas. The BLM must explain how a special recreation management designation 

would impact operations on existing leases.

Response: Each ACEC considered in the alternatives did meet the relevance and importance criteria. 

Those ACECs proposed that did not meet the relevance and importance criteria, such as the Beaver Creek 

expansion area, are not considered in detail in the EIS (draft EIS page 2-4). Regardless of establishment 

of ACECs, BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of existing, valid leases. 

Comment: I therefore strongly oppose this Alternative and support instead Alternative 3 with the 

following revision included in its final form: All nine ACECs shall be included for special management 

and shall be permanently off-limits to energy development to ensure preservation of the quality of 1ife 

and integrity of resources, other than natural gas, which grace this region.

Response: BLM cannot make areas currently leased for oil and gas development (such as portions of the 

Beaver Creek, Ross Butte, White-tailed Prairie Dog, and Wind River Front areas) “permanently off-limits 

to energy development”. Leaseholders have rights BLM is legally bound to honor.

Comment: This draft does not provide adequate environmental protection for any part of the Green River 

Basin. In particular it overlooks its own studies of 40 years in the upper Green River Potholes area. It 

does not take into consideration the reasons for placing the previous moratorium on minerals leasing on 

the north western Wind River Mountain front.

Response: The draft EIS fully considers protection of the Green River Potholes area and the larger Wind 

River Front. Two out of the four alternatives considered, including the Preferred Alternative, would make 

the area described unavailable for oil and gas leasing.

Comment: The entire Wind-River/Wyoming-Range Mountains fronts and foothills areas including the 

Upper Green River and its major drainage areas, between Bridger-Teton National Forest boundaries, 

should be redesignated “unavailable area” “Class I VRM Area”, “ACEC”, “Sensitive Area” etc. 

Whichever or all-applicable that provides stringent protection from industrial leasing 

activity/development of minerals/hydrocarbons and related mining/drilling/etc.; from at least East Fork 

River drainages E-SE of Pinedale/Boulder and E of Hiway-191, to N-NW of Pinedale/Cora, and E-W-N 

of Hiway-189 to at least Cottonwood Creek; retaining these areas’ previous/current/future characters as 

historical/cultural, people-oriented agricultural/recreational/scenic public posterity uses, without 

industrialization. A “No-Surface Occupancy” and/or “Seasonal Restrictions limitations” designation may 

not be sufficient protection.

A27-678 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Response: The areas proposed would be unavailable for leasing or would be encumbered by NSO 

restrictions in Alternative 3. The areas available and unavailable for oil and gas leasing have been revised 

in the final EIS. BLM presented a reasonable range of alternatives in areas available, restricted, and not 

available for oil and gas leasing and development.

Comment: The Upper Green ACEC should be expanded to include at least 5 miles on either side of the 

Green River starting near the Town of Cora. This area has the highest significance environmentally, 

culturally, historically, biologically, and is at the core of character of the Pinedale Planning Area.

Response: BLM has considered your suggestion and has prepared a review of the relevance and 

importance criteria for this area. The area did not meet the criteria. This alternative has been added to the 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis for ACECs not proposed.

Comment: Another area shown in the Upper Green River Valley Coalition slide presentation that was not 

fully considered in the RMP DEIS is the Fontenelle Elk Winter Range Area. Much of the Fontenelle Area 

would be designated as Unavailable for future leasing pursuant to Alternative 3, which is commendable. 

Compare CD Slide 33 with Map 2-8. Pursuant to Alternative 4, however, most of this area would be 

given the minimal protection of a Minimally Developed Area. Compare CD slide 33 with Map 2-9. There 

are a number of reasons this entire area should be protected from any future leasing, including leasing 

subject to an NSO stipulation: 

• Considerable portions of this area are not currently leased, meaning the BLM has a rare 

opportunity to protect an area from leasing and the resource management difficulties that leasing 

creates. Map 1-3. This also presents an opportunity to facilitate meaningful and effective off-site 

mitigation due to development in other areas. 

• There is little in the way of existing oil and gas development in the area. Map 3-5; CD slide 35. 

Most the area only has a low development potential. Map 4-1. 

• Significant portions of this area would be designated a Class II Visual Resource Management 

class pursuant to Alternative 3, and this is largely true pursuant to Alternative 4 as well. Maps 2-

22 and 2-30. Not leasing in this area will make it more viable to achieve this management 

direction. 

• Much of this area is a right-of-way avoidance area under both Alternatives 3 and 4. Maps 2-24 

and 2-32. Not leasing in this area will make it more viable to achieve this management direction. 

• There are sensitive cultural sites in this area and under Alternative 3 a significant area would be 

recognized as an important component of the Sublette Cut-off of the Oregon Trail. Maps 2-25 and 

2-34. There are also significant historic sites in the area including Names Hill and 

Seedskeedee/Fontenelle. Map 3-1. 

• There are large areas of pronghorn crucial winter range in this area. Map3-15. 

• A significant portion of the area is crucial mule deer winter range. Maps 3-16, 3-19. 

• Almost the entire area is crucial elk winter range. 

• Much of the area has at least two and in some areas three overlapping crucial ranges, some the 

greatest concentrations of overlapping crucial ranges in the Pinedale Field Office. CD slide 17. 

Given this remarkable concentration of biological and cultural values, all of the Fontenelle Area should be 

designated as Unavailable for future leasing. The loopholes currently present in the provisions applicable 

Pinedale RMP A27-679 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

to Alternative 3, particularly allowance for conversion to an Intensively Developed Field, should be 

eliminated. And, BLM should exert its retained rights on existing leasing by taking actions that include 

but are not limited to requiring phased development, directional drilling, and full compliance with wildlife 

protective stipulations, as discussed above.

Response: Additional discussion of the different oil and gas management areas, how they would work, 

how areas could be converted from one type of area to another, and exceptions have been added to the 

final EIS.

Comment: The Upper Green River ACEC of 12,270 acres should be established and unavailable to oil 

and gas leasing. This crucial area contains the headwaters of the Upper Green River should not be left 

vulnerable to oil and gas leasing. 

Response: This is considered in Alternative 3. The areas available for oil and gas leasing have been 

revised in the final EIS. 

Comment: BLM seems to have declined to designate these areas as ACECs because it feels alternative 

management is sufficient for these highly relevant and important fragile resources. This does not amount 

to “giving priority” to designating ACECs. These areas clearly meet the importance and relevance 

requirements of the criteria and should be designated as ACECs and afforded protection. BLM seems to 

assert that the language in 43 U.S.C. § 1702(a) about special management being “required” can absolve it 

from designating ACECs when it can find some other way to protect these lands. But such a view is not 

accurate. BLM can always find other ways to protect areas besides designating them as ACECs through 

its general multiple use authority, but such an effort thwarts the will of Congress to give “priority” to 

designating ACECs not other special management areas, which are often purely of BLM’s own creation 

with no defined management requirements. 

Furthermore, any time an area is “developed” or is “used” or where “no development” must be ensured, 

ACEC designation is “required” because these circumstances create a need for “special management 

attention” so as to protect any recognized important resource values. 43 U.S.C. § 1702(a). That is, ACECs 

are not to be designated only when required for protection of the resources, but rather the requirement to 

designate attaches when development or use will occur in an area that meets the relevance and 

significance criteria, or if use will occur in an area that meets the criteria when no development must be 

ensured to protect the resources. BLM recognizes that nearly all of the ACECs at issue here are likely to 

be “developed” or “used” to some degree and that some of them are areas where “no development” must 

be ensured, and thus the special management attention of an ACEC designation is required. These lands 

require special management attention to protect and prevent irreparable damage to the resources in these 

areas that BLM recognizes are important and relevant. The BLM recognized in the table presented in 

Appendix 4 in the RMP DEIS that many of the ACECs considered met BLM’s relevance and importance 

criteria. These areas should be designated ACECs regardless of which alternative is chosen for the RMP.

Response: For areas that meet the ACEC relevance and importance criteria, BLM is required to analyze 

designation of the ACEC in at least one alternative of the EIS. BLM is not required to establish as an 

ACEC every area that meets the relevance and importance criteria. Protections for all areas that meet the 

relevance and importance criteria, and for some areas that meet only one criterion, are included in the 

Preferred Alternative.

Comment: We would like to see confirmed non-waiveable special management area designations where 

existing non-developed oil and gas leases will be allowed to expire, be traded, or sold, and permanently 

retired from leasing.

A27-680 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Response: The alternatives present analysis of a number of areas that could be made unavailable for 

leasing. Undeveloped oil and gas leases are always subject to expiration, unless included in a unit. The 

preferred alternative has been revised in the final EIS to allow for exchange of undeveloped leases in 

areas unavailable for new leasing. 

Comment: I am requesting that BLM incorporate the following additional direction into the new RMP 

and into each of the alternatives evaluated in the EIS. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Appendix 

4 in the DEIS lists PRA lands that were considered for ACEC designation. Many of these areas are of 

environmental concern due to water issues. I concur that the New Fork Potholes area should be 

designated an ACEC. The existing Beaver Creek and Rock Creek ACECs both provide habitats for the 

Colorado River cutthroat trout and should continue to be managed as ACECs under the new RMP. 

However, BLM claims the proposed expansions of these the ACECs - to protect additional CRCT habitat 

did not meet the “importance” criteria for ACEC designation. Therefore, BLM is not proposing to expand 

either ACEC. Native cutthroat trout - particularly the CRCT - are in serious trouble throughout their range 

due to hybridization, competition with non-native trout, and habitat degradation. Any remaining relatively 

pure stocks of native trout are therefore of considerable importance. BLM should expand the Beaver 

Creek and Rock Creek ACECs to protect the additional CRCT habitats. 

For the same reasons, the BLM should designate as ACECs the North Cottonwood Creek watershed, 

South Cottonwood Creek watershed, South Beaver watershed, and portions of the Wyoming Range Front 

that provide habitat for native trout. None of these areas were pro-posed for ACEC status for the new 

RMP because the BLM asserted they do not meet the “importance” criteria. Again, protection of native 

trout is critically important for conserving these species and to avoid the need for federal listing under the 

ESA.

Response: ACEC status of itself is just a label and would not provide any protection to fish habitats. 

Meaningful protection would have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to achieve the 

desired result. This protection can be implemented without creating additional ACECs. Management of 

wildlife habitats was conducted in the planning area as a cohesive whole, not limited to ACEC areas. The 

alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, include objectives and actions to maintain suitable 

Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) habitats. The ACEC relevance and importance reviews are 

available on the RMP website at 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents/PinedaleBLM_ACEC_Evaluation_Report.pdf. BLM 

analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives regarding ACEC establishment and protections of special 

areas.

Comment: “Crucial Watersheds,” highly sensitive watersheds and other “Areas of Hydrologic Concern” 

- including Soap Holes Basin and the Tiptop Watershed (see figure 6) - should also be evaluated for 

ACEC designation. The DEIS does not do this for any alternatives. Areas that have existing or past 

human uses are still eligible for ACEC designation, and this management designation does not necessarily 

preclude future uses, provided they will protect the watershed values.

Response: Your proposal to consider these areas for ACEC status has been addressed. The ACEC 

relevance and importance reviews are available on the RMP website at: 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents/PinedaleBLM_ACEC_Evaluation_Report.pdf.

Comment: The DEIS also fails to consider lands for ACEC that are critically important for domestic 

water supplies. This includes potable ground waters and recharge areas. The eastern flanks and northwest 

end of Mesa and the lands around Boulder Lake should be considered for ACEC designation for ground 

and surface water protection. Other areas identified as critical water-sheds and recharge areas for the 

towns of Big Piney/Marbleton and La Barge should also be considered for ACEC designation.

Pinedale RMP A27-681 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Response: Your proposal to consider these areas for ACEC status has been addressed. The ACEC 

relevance and importance reviews are available on the RMP website at 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents/PinedaleBLM_ACEC_Evaluation_Report.pdf.

Comment: Another surprising omission from the ACEC candidate list is the Upper Green River corridor. 

This is a designated Class 1 “Outstanding” surface water and one of the top trout fisheries in the State. It 

is critically important to wildlife and to many residents for recreation, irrigation water, and employment 

(e.g., fishing guides). Roughly 10 miles of this river corridor flows through BLM lands from north of 

Cora to Warren Bridge. This segment should be designated an ACEC. Under Alternative 4, this segment 

would be managed as a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), which would be a less desirable 

designation.

Response: The Upper Green River corridor, to the extent that it is managed by BLM, is included as an 

ACEC in Alternative 3. No significant difference in impacts to the area was determined in Chapter 4.

Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) 

Comment: BLM’s proposed RMP (Alternative 4) would recommend four river segments in the PRA for 

inclusion in the National Wild & Scenic River System: the Upper Green, East Fork, Scab Creek, and 

Silver Creek. I support these recommendations and feel they are well deserved; special management of 

these areas will also protect high quality surface water resources. I believe the corridors should be 

expanded, however. As is evident from Map 2-29 of the DEIS, three of the W&S corridors BLM has 

proposed are relatively small and will not necessarily protect the wild, scenic or recreational qualities of 

these segments.31 For East Fork, Scab Creek and Silver Creek, BLM appears to have limited the 

recommended segments to the first encounter of state or private lands as the rivers flow out of the Wind 

River Mountains. The agency has the discretion to recommend W&S status for longer segments that cross 

through state lands.

Response: BLM has proposed for WSR status those segments that passed through both the eligibility and 

suitability screenings for potential for inclusion in the WSR system. Segments downstream were not 

found to be eligible and/or suitable for inclusion in the WSR system. The WSR report completed for the 

segments is available at http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents_WSR.html.

Comment: PAGE:2-157 to 2-158, SECTION: East Fork & Green River units, RECOMMENDED 

CHANGE: Objective 9 Conduct a study in accordance with BLM guidance of potentially eligible and 

suitable segments for designation as wild, scenic or recreation rivers. EXPLANATION: 8351 - Wild and 

Scenic Rivers - Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and Management sets forth 

the factors that BLM must consider in a WSRA study. BLM does not have the discretion to pick and 

chose which of the factors it will consider. The WSRA report done by outside contractors did not allow 

the manual and thus BLM needs to start anew and separate the report from the RMP FEIS. This is 

important because the WSRA report entirely omitted existing water rights and impacts of proposed 

management on such rights. The local governments understand from other BLM offices there was a 

mistaken understanding that classification would not affect existing water rights. This is disproved by the 

same Handbook which expressly prohibits any structures or rights of- way associated with the exercise of 

water rights. In short, if one cannot divert water, one cannot use the water right. Failure to follow WSRA 

study guidelines is a fatal flaw for the RMP. BLM also does not have the discretion not to follow agency 

manual and handbooks. Robert Glenn, 124 IBLA 104, 108 (1992); Ellis Ferguson, 69 IBLA 352 n.2 

(1983).

Response: These issues are addressed in the suitability analysis of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Report 

completed in 2003 and referenced in Appendix 24. The report is available at 

A27-682 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents_WSR.html. The suitability analysis was completed 

based on the 13 determination factors contained in BLM-M-8351 Section 33.

Comment: 3.) Wild and Scenic river designation or management to preserve those attributes has too 

many negative affects to agriculture, including: threatening state water law and excluding livestock 

grazing in the designated zone. The RMP should designate no streams for Wild and Scenic River 

management.

Response: Wild and Scenic River designation would not remove water rights, because BLM does not 

have this authority. No closures to livestock grazing in the Wild and Scenic Rivers are contemplated in 

the EIS.

Comment:PAGE: 3-137, SECTION: 3.18.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete and Replace as 

Follows: 3.18.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (WSRA) was passed to 

protect free-flowing rivers or river segments and their related outstandingly remarkable values (e.g., 

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural). The WSRA establishes three WSR 

classifications: Wild, Scenic, and Recreational. The BLM is required to evaluate all rivers located on land 

under its administration to determine whether the rivers are eligible and suitable for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). BLM will conduct a review of free-flowing 

waterways in the planning area within 5 years from the signing of the Record of Decision. [BLM has 

conducted a review of all BLM-administered public lands along waterways in the planning area for their 

eligibility and suitability for inclusion in the NWSRS (Appendix 24). The findings of the review have 

been used in this RMP revision.] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: The WSRA Report prepared for the 

RMP does not conform to BLM Manual Direction. BLM must follow its own direction. The Manual DM 

8351 directs BLM to either include inventory and suitability as part of the RMP or if not done, then to do 

it separately. Because the WSRA report entirely omitted categorization of existing water rights and their 

impacts on river segments, the support (or lack thereof) of state and local governments, and the 

congressional delegation, the report is flawed. DM 8351.43B. See Comments # 32,199.

Response: These issues are addressed in the suitability analysis of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Report 

completed in 2003 and referenced in Appendix 24. The report is available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents_WSR.html. The suitability analysis was completed 

based on the 13 determination factors contained in BLM-M-8351 Section 33. 

Comment: PAGE: 4.36, SECTION: 4.5.7, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: The Green River WSR Unit 

would be an exclusion [avoidance ] (STRIKEOUT) area for ROWs; in other words, a ROW could go 

through this ACEC but only with intensive management in the form of mitigation and stipulations placed 

on the grant. EXPLANATION: BLM manual classifies this as exclusion since any structures are 

prohibited. If recommended for scenic then cannot build. More importantly, WSRA study fatally flawed 

and must be severed from RMP. See Comment Ch. 2-#32.

Response: As structures are not prohibited in this area but require mitigation, it would be an avoidance 

area. Structures can be built on a WSR segment classified “scenic”. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-76, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [Under this 

alternative, the Wind River Front MA (201,240 acres) would include the East Fork River WSR (1,130 

acres), the Silver Creek WSR (860 acres), and the Scab Creek WSR (1,350 acres). The MA, including the 

listed WSRs, would be unavailable for fluid mineral leasing. Impacts and management of existing leases 

would be the same as those described for the MA under Alternative 3. (Note: There are no existing leases 

in the WSRs.) The development potential for CBNG and non-CBNG in the MA varies from low to no 

potential(Tables 2-32 and 2-33). ] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: See Comments ##Ch 2-30 (WSRA 

Pinedale RMP A27-683 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

study deficient and flawed); Ch. 2- #9 (must withdraw under §204 of FLPMA); see also Comments April 

2006 and memorandum.

Response: This paragraph is not related to the WSRA study and should be retained. These impacts result 

from the proposed WSR segments being contained within the Scab Creek Wilderness Study Area.

Comment: PAGE: 4-76, SECTION: 4.7.1, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE [The Green River 

WSR (7,100 acres) would be available for leasing with an NSO stipulation. The WSR would be closed to 

geophysical operations unless any impact from such operations could be adequately mitigated. The 

impacts on mineral development from the NSO designation would be the same as previously described 

for NSO areas. The WSR contains existing oil and gas leases. Management of these leases would be the 

same as previously described for existing leases in areas with proposed NSO designations or unavailable 

for leasing designations.] (STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: WSRA study insufficient, Comment Ch.2-

#30. Withdrawal necessary. Ch. 2-#9.

Response: These issues are addressed in the suitability analysis of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Report 

completed in 2003 and referenced in Appendix 24. The report is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents_WSR.html. The suitability analysis was completed 

based on the 13 determination factors contained in BLM-M-8351 Section 33. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-154, SECTION: WSRA, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Delete WSRA section, 

EXPLANATION: RMP and related report do not conform to BLM Handbook on WSRA 8351 - Wild and 

Scenic Rivers - Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and Management. The report 

fails to identify valid existing water rights and impacts on the exercise of the water rights. BLM direction 

prohibits structures within 1⁄4 mile of the water body, and structures are the only feasible means of 

exercising water rights. In addition, the report fails to address local and state government support or lack 

thereof, congressional support, and existing landownership. These are not discretionary items and the 

failure of the contractor to comply with BLM direction precludes inclusion of the WSRA process in the 

RMP. Instead, BLM must postpone WSRA study until a proper analysis is done.

Response: These issues are addressed in the suitability analysis of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Report 

completed in 2003 and referenced in Appendix 24. The report is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents_WSR.html. The suitability analysis was completed 

based on the 13 determination factors contained in BLM-M-8351, Section 33. 

Comment: Based on the BLM’s definition for areas to be designated as ACEC’s each area has to go 

through a series of criteria evaluation where their relevance and importance as a resource is defined and 

attributed through a series of numerical attributions. 

However, it is with concern that TU and WWF observe that many of these proposed ACEC’s have been 

turned down from designation using subjective reasoning rather than thoughtful scientific and technical 

management analysis. Some areas proposed for ACEC designation in the DEIS contained sensitive and 

vulnerable species and even had an importance and relevance criteria designation, but were turned down 

because BLM determined that management actions should apply to the area as a whole and not to a 

special area (see Evaluation Report). This logic tends to fail the test since the Pinedale BLM office has 

done little to manage the resource area as a whole but rather manages it now just for oil and gas drilling. 

Under this management-of-the-whole strategy for these special areas it almost guarantees that the current 

and future energy development pace and associated impacts will destroy the special and unique values of 

these areas. 

A27-684 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

The BLM should be implementing much more of a forward thinking process that involves looking at 

cumulative and landscape conservation planning techniques for assigning ACEC designation to these 

areas. As more and more development encroaches on wildlife and fisheries habitat, the importance of 

these special areas will increase. BLM should reconsider their ACEC recommendations and assign 

ACEC status to all of the proposed areas plus consider the designation of additional ACEC’s. This is the 

right thing to do and can go a long way toward ensuring that there will be available intact habitat in the 

future. 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) is the state’s authority for guiding and enforcing the 

statutes regarding wildlife management on lands in Wyoming. As the owner of a significant percent of 

federal lands in Wyoming containing the habitat that wildlife depend on, the BLM is charged with 

assisting the WGFD in meeting and accomplishing their goals. Indeed, one of the main goals of the 

Federal Land and Policy Management Act (FLPMA) that directs the BLM is to “preserve and protect 

certain public lands in their natural condition” and provide “food and habitat for fish and wildlife”. The 

Pinedale BLM must recognize the crucial role they play in the future of wildlife and natural resources in 

this state. 

Response: BLM analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives regarding ACEC establishment and 

protection of special areas. Consideration of impacts to surrounding areas is included in the Cumulative 

Impacts Analysis in Section 4.19.

Each ACEC considered in the alternatives did meet the relevance and importance criteria. Those ACECs 

proposed that did not meet the relevance and importance criteria, like the Beaver Creek expansion area, 

are not considered in detail in the EIS (draft EIS page 2-4). Regardless of establishment of ACECs, BLM 

does not have the authority to prohibit development of existing, valid leases. 

ACEC status of itself is just a label and would not provide protection of wildlife migration corridors. 

Meaningful protection would have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to achieve 

protection. This protection can be implemented without creating these large ACECs. Management of 

wildlife habitats was conducted in the planning area as a cohesive whole, not limited to ACEC areas.

For areas that meet the ACEC relevance and importance criteria, BLM is required to analyze designation 

of the ACEC in at least one alternative of the EIS. BLM is not required to establish as an ACEC every 

area that meets the relevance and importance criteria. Protection for all areas that meet the relevance and 

importance criteria, and for some areas that meet only one criterion, are included in the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Comment: Rock Creek ACEC: TU and WWF support the ACEC designation for the Rock Creek 

ACEC as it is defined in Alternative 3 in the DEIS. This existing ACEC area has been recognized by the 

BLM as having both relevance and importance criteria for scenic, fisheries and wildlife values. 

Alternative 3 remains more specific in protection definitions and does not decrease the acreage amount as 

it has been done in Alternative 4. The value as crucial aquatic habitat for pure conservation populations 

of Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) is vital to the continued survival of this trout species. The 

CRCT is considered a Wyoming sensitive species, has special status under the WGFD’s management for 

conservation species, and the CRCT populations within this ACEC have been used as brood stock for 

other reintroduction efforts within the Pinedale resource planning area and the state. This ACEC also 

contains important mule deer, moose and elk migration corridors, moose and elk parturition areas, and 

crucial winter range for moose and one of two elk herds in the area that continue to winter on native range 

(WGFD). The protection of visual resources through a Class I VRM management designation should be 

a significant consideration since the recent ozone contamination issues that are plaguing the Pinedale area 

will only increase with the proposed increase in more than 4,000 natural gas wells. 

Pinedale RMP A27-685 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The acreage removed from the ACEC in Alternative 4 is not 

part of the Rock Creek watershed and would not impact the CRCT population. 

Comment: Beaver Creek ACEC: TU and WWF support the ACEC designation for the Beaver Creek 

ACEC as it is defined in Alternative 3 in the DEIS. Meeting the relevance and importance criteria for 

fisheries and wildlife values, CRCT conservation populations and elk parturition areas have the two 

primary values identified. Yet according to WGFD, this area also supports mule deer and moose crucial 

ranges, moose migration corridors, moose parturition areas and sage grouse leks. We support the 

expansion recommendation described in the DEIS (p.2-107) under Alternative 3 from the original 3,548 

acres (Evaluation Report) to the proposed 10,160 acres. However, the value of this area as a unique and 

special habitat presence and its popularity for hunting and fishing should ensure that the ACEC 

designation include restrictions to geophysical activities to foot traffic only and limit the oil and gas 

leasing to existing valid rights with no further availability to future leasing. This would help ensure the 

future stability of those sensitive and potentially threatened wildlife and fisheries species and help prevent 

them from being federally listed. 

Response: The Beaver Creek ACEC area, including the expansion area considered in Alternative 3, is 

fully leased for oil and gas development. The area includes several producing wells, and there is no 

indication that the leases will expire in the foreseeable future. The area contains existing maintained roads 

for access to existing wells. It is reasonable to allow use of these roads in conducting geophysical 

exploration and other activities. BLM feels that conservation of CRCT habitat should occur over its entire 

range, not in restricted areas with ACEC designations. 

Comment: New Fork Potholes ACEC (proposed): The unique qualities of the New Fork Potholes has 

been recognized by the BLM from a scenic, fisheries and wildlife, and geologic aspect and we are eager 

to support this area as an ACEC designation. Alternative 3 provides significant protection measures in its 

management actions and would help support the special qualities and features of this area. 

Response: The management actions included in the proposed plan are the same as those proposed for 

Alternative 3 for the New Fork Potholes proposed ACEC. 

Comment: Trapper’s Point ACEC (proposed): This world class migration area for mule deer and 

pronghorn antelope should be protected with the measures outlined in Alternative 3, which includes an 

increase from the original acreage amount of 3,988 (Evaluation Report) to 9,540 acres (DEIS 2-108). 

However, the timing restrictions in Alternative 3 (Action f-2-108) should actually be changed from the 

January 15th date to November 15, as this makes biological sense in protecting crucial winter range. 

Alternative 4 uses the November 15th timing restriction. Both TU and WWF do not support the 

Alternative 4 preferred alternative since it decreases the acreage size to 4,160 acres. 

Response: BLM recognizes the value of the Cora Butte area as a staging area for animals preparing to 

move south through the Trapper’s Point migration bottleneck. In the final EIS, although it would not be 

included in the Trapper’s Point ACEC, the Cora Butte area would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

The area is currently unleased. BLM feels that the protections provided in the proposed plan are 

appropriate for protecting the area and providing for continued use of the bottleneck by big game species. 

Comment: White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC (proposed): The BLM should reconsider establishing this 

ACEC under Alternative 4 since the agency acknowledges the white-tailed prairie dogs’ sensitive nature 

and its precarious population status (reduced from as much as 90% of its former range) (Evaluation 

Report). Under Appendix 4 in the DEIS, the BLM’s analysis places high values to the relevance and 

importance criteria. Without the protections offered in Alternative 3, the potential for loss of this species’ 

habitat remains high. Though Alternative 3 offers some specific language for management, consideration 

A27-686 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

should be given to providing stronger and more specific management actions other than just offering 

“intensive management” actions where oil and gas leasing will occur. 

Response: BLM is unable to stipulate more specific actions for protection of prairie dog habitats, because 

many of the locations have not yet been determined. It is the intention of BLM to protect the habitats of 

white-tailed prairie dogs. The management actions included in the proposed plan for protection of the 

habitats are similar to those for the ACEC in Alternative 3, with the exception of land acquisitions. 

Surveys for presence of prairie dogs are required by USFWS. BLM believes that the management actions 

for protection of white-tailed prairie dog habitats as included in Alternative 4 are appropriate. 

Comment: Upper Green River ACEC (proposed): The importance of the Upper Green River ACEC 

for wildlife, fisheries, recreation, and scenic values plus its valued hunting and angling activities makes 

this a high value ACEC. And while it’s not even included in the Appendix 4 evaluation table (A4-2) of 

the DEIS, it receives a strong evaluation with specific management actions in the DEIS discussion under 

Alternative 3 (DEIS 2-108). The analysis conducted for this area to be considered an ACEC met all of 

BLM’s relevance and importance criteria in the Evaluation Report yet for some unknown reason, the 

BLM chose not to consider it under its preferred alternative 4. This subjective and inconsistent analysis 

of these ACEC designations is alarming and confusing. 

Equally important but not acknowledged by the BLM in any of their analysis is the presence of Colorado 

River cutthroat trout in the Green River and tributaries located within the boundaries of this proposed 

ACEC (WGFD; USFS). Core conservation populations of CRCT are known to exist in these waters and 

protection actions to maintain these populations should be enacted under the DEIS alternatives. 

Response: Table A4-1 has been corrected to include a summary of the Upper Green River ACEC 

analysis. For areas that meet the relevance and importance screening, BLM is required to consider ACEC 

designation in at least one alternative of the EIS; however, BLM is not required to propose designation of 

the ACEC in the preferred alternative. The Upper Green River area would be managed as a Special 

Recreation Management Area in the proposed plan. The area would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing, 

would have restrictions on surface disturbing activities, and vehicle use would be limited to designated 

roads. In addition, recreation use would be managed to preserve and coordinate with the recognized 

natural values of the area. BLM feels this is an appropriate approach to management of the many values 

in the Upper Green River area. 

Comment: CCC Ponds ACEC(proposed): The importance of the CCC Ponds for providing migration 

corridors for mule deer is recognized in the BLM’s Evaluation Report but the Report lacks the 

recognition that this area provides for moose and elk migration corridors. Nor does BLM recognize the 

important crucial winter range for elk and moose and parturition areas for elk and moose (WGFD). These 

quality habitat conditions are now being threatened by all types of development and increased recreation 

use, placing these areas in an even more vulnerable status. Due to its location and direction of prevailing 

winds, this area is susceptible to the heavy ozone impacts now occurring in the Pinedale area. This area 

should have full ACEC designation as described in Alternative 3 of the DEIS. 

Response: ACEC designation would not provide the protections discussed. Because of the recreation 

values, the CCC Ponds area would be managed as a Special Recreation Management Area in the 

proposed plan. BLM recognizes the important values present in the CCC Ponds area. Because of these 

values, the area would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. It would also be closed to land sales and 

locatable mineral entry (a withdrawal would be pursued). Ozone impacts are addressed in the Pinedale 

RMP and in the Anticline final SEIS and should become less prevalent over the next few years. Crucial 

winter range information is obtained from the WGFD. The only crucial range present in the area of the 

Pinedale RMP A27-687 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

CCC Ponds is crucial winter range for mule deer. If wildlife habitat information is updated by the WGFD, 

BLM maps would also be updated. 

Comment: Ross Butte ACEC (proposed): No mention of important wildlife or fisheries values are 

made in the BLM’s ACEC analysis but according to the WGFD this area contains crucial pronghorn 

antelope and mule deer habitat, sage grouse leks, and important migration corridors for pronghorn. Ross 

Butte also overlooks the Green River which provides important fisheries values in the area but has not 

been mentioned in the evaluation. 

Response: The Ross Butte area does include crucial winter range for both mule deer and pronghorn. No 

sage-grouse leks have been documented in the area; however, there is some evidence that sage-grouse use 

this area in the winter. For these reasons, and to protect the resources cited in the comment, BLM 

proposes the Ross Butte Management Area. In the proposed plan, the Ross Butte area would be 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing, development of communication sites would be limited to the existing 

site on Ross Butte, and OHV use would be limited to designated roads. Seasonal restrictions would also 

apply in crucial winter range areas. These actions would protect the important values present in the Ross 

Butte area. 

Comment: Consideration to the impact to sportsmen and outfitters and guides should be evaluated when 

trying to determine whether special areas should be put aside for the future of wildlife and its habitat. 

Equally important are the high fishing values these areas contain in terms of sports fisheries. With respect 

to both fishing and hunting activities, these areas have more than locally significant qualities and affect 

both local businesses and statewide economics. These factors should be a consideration when evaluating 

these areas’ importance values. 

The BLM has determined that the above discussed areas met their importance and relevance criteria in 

order to be included as ACEC designation, both through the ACEC Evaluation Report and in the DEIS 

and Appendix 4. While the analysis substantiates the reasoning for inclusion to an ACEC they do not 

discuss the reasoning or analysis for rejecting or decreasing an acreage amount of an ACEC. By limiting 

size amounts through acreage reductions in most of the Alternative 4 selections, it potentially increases 

the loss of habitat by allowing energy development into these areas. Based on the current management 

actions and monitoring being done on the Jonah and the Pinedale Anticline, the BLM does not provide 

much credibility or assurances to the public that these proposed ACEC’s will receive special management 

attention if they do not get selected for an ACEC designation. TU and WWF therefore emphasize the 

support of ACEC designation for all six proposed ACEC’s and the new existing ACEC’s as they are 

presented in Alternative 3 in the DEIS. 

Response: ACEC designation would not provide the protections discussed. For areas that meet the 

relevance and importance screening, BLM is required to consider ACEC designation in at least one 

alternative of the EIS; however, BLM is not required to propose designation of the ACEC in the preferred 

alternative. BLM has determined through the planning process that the important values found in these 

areas can be appropriately protected and managed without applying the ACEC designation. It is the 

management actions and stipulations applied in the plan, not the ACEC label, that provide for protection 

of the important resources present. 

Comment: TU and WWF feel that there were numerous proposed ACEC’s that should have received 

ACEC designation based on their unique and special wildlife, fisheries, recreation and scenic values. 

These areas were either dismissed with no reasoning other than they did not meet the criteria or they met 

the criteria but were consequently dismissed as an ACEC option. The BLM needs to provide more 

detailed analysis as to why these areas, many of which not only contain wildlife and fishery values but 

contain very important habitat values, were dismissed. 

A27-688 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Beaver Creek Expansion proposal, Miller Mountain proposal, Muddy Creek proposal, North Cottonwood 

Creek proposal, Rock Creek Expansion proposal, LaBarge Elk Winter Range, South Beaver Watershed 

proposal, South Cottonwood Creek proposal, The Mesa proposal, Wind River Front proposal and the 

Wyoming Range Front proposal were all areas that were evaluated both in the ACEC Evaluation Report

and in Appendix 4 of the DEIS. Many of these areas passed the relevance criteria test with many values 

but were determined not to have importance and thus weren’t recommended. TU and WWF would ask 

that the BLM define what “importance” is, since it seems to vary among each ACEC designation. 

Response: For the purpose of ACEC proposal evaluation, the importance criteria include the following: 

• Has more than locally significant qualities, which give it special worth, consequence, meaning, 

distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource. 

• Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, 

unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change. 

• Has been recognized as warranting protection to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

the mandates of FLPMA. 

• Has qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and 

public welfare. 

• Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property. 

BLM attempted to focus ACEC designations on those areas that stood out as being especially rare or 

fragile. The Trapper’s Point and New Fork Potholes ACEC proposals fit into that category. 

Comment: The Beaver Creek Expansion and the Rock Creek Expansion proposals contain important 

core conservation populations of CRCT, crucial big game habitat and migration corridors, and valuable 

recreation, hunting and angling opportunities. They failed the importance value criteria although from a 

biological basis, they should not have. Both these expansion areas have qualities or circumstances that 

make them fragile or sensitive and vulnerable to adverse change with CRCT populations, elk parturition 

areas, mule deer, moose and elk crucial habitat and migration corridors, and sage grouse leks (WGFD). 

Studies have shown that oil and gas development are impacting wildlife habitat and recent ozone and 

water contamination issues brought about by oil and gas development are only going to increase with the 

proposed development scenario (EPA letter, 2008; BLM DEIS RMP). 

For the proposed North Cottonwood Creek and South Cottonwood Creek ACEC’s, TU and WWF request 

that the BLM reevaluate the wildlife and habitat qualities of this area. WGFD recognizes important and 

crucial big game habitat for mule deer, moose and elk. They also have identified parturition areas for 

moose and elk in these areas, plus important migration corridors for mule deer, pronghorn, moose and elk. 

Observations of sage grouse leks and brooding areas are also known to have occurred in these areas. 

These open spaces offer some of the last of vast undisturbed areas and should be given a more thorough 

analysis for ACEC designation. 

The remaining proposed areas that were rejected for ACEC designation (LaBarge Elk Winter Range, 

South Beaver Watershed proposal, South Cottonwood Creek proposal, The Mesa proposal, Wind River 

Front proposal and the Wyoming Range Front proposal) all have significant and numerous values as 

illustrated by the BLM’s Evaluation Report. It is difficult to understand why some areas which have all 

the attributes that the above six have are considered worthy of ACEC designation yet these are not. 

Pinedale RMP A27-689 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Most of the waterbodies within these six proposed areas have important conservation populations of 

CRCT; indeed, some have genetically pure populations which is quite important in light of the fact that 

CRCT have been eliminated from 90% of its historic range (Evaluation Report; WGFD). The potential 

for contamination of the streams and rivers that contain CRCT in these areas remain high should energy 

development be allowed. Benzene contamination in oil and gas industrial water wells have been 

identified in 88 of 230 wells in the Pinedale Anticline area (EPA letter 2008; BLM DEIS) and despite 

testing, the source of contamination is still unknown (BLM 2008). By offering protection measures on 

these important wildlife and fisheries habitat areas and working toward developing more intensive 

management action plans for areas that are being developed, it is possible to maintain available quality 

habitat within the Pinedale BLM region. 

Both TU and WWF respectfully request that the above six proposed ACEC areas be reconsidered for 

ACEC designation. Protection in various forms need to be enacted now and not once an area has been 

severely impacted or destroyed. Maintaining connectivity, landscape attributes, off-site mitigation areas 

and wildlife corridors help keep many wildlife and fish species off the endangered species list. The lack 

of substantial data analysis in rejecting these areas for ACEC designation is unacceptable to TU and 

WWF and the BLM needs to look at more aggressive approaches to conserving these diminishing wildlife 

habitats within the Pinedale Resource Area. 

Response: Changes in the proposed plan regarding areas available for oil and gas leasing should address 

some of these concerns. It continues to be the feeling of BLM that, for instance, historic and potential 

CRCT habitats are spread throughout the planning area, and that these habitats should all be managed for 

the health of CRCT; management should not be limited to specific ACEC areas. 

Comment: There are several unique areas within the Pinedale BLM Resource boundaries that offer the 

BLM an opportunity to provide protection measures while not impacting oil and gas leasing rights. The 

Ryegrass Area, Bench Corral (which includes South and North Cottonwood proposed ACEC’s previously 

mentioned), and Fontenelle Elk Winter Range all have important wildlife and fisheries values, high 

recreation values, and have not been leased entirely out by oil and gas. This would provide an 

opportunity for the BLM to apply protection measures with minimal complications. 

We would also recommend that these areas be off limits to any future leasing and this would serve to 

coincide with the Western Governor’s Association’s Oil and Gas Recommendations of November 2007, 

the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative and the many stakeholders that seek to support actions 

which limit leasing and help wildlife and fisheries. All three areas also offer native crucial winter range 

for elk and by placing protection from development on these areas, the potential for decreasing incidents 

of brucellosis outbreaks would benefit producers, the state of Wyoming and wildlife. 

Response: Changes in the areas available for oil and gas leasing in the proposed plan are responsive to 

these concerns. 

Comment: With all that is being planned for the Pinedale area as well as other oil and gas projects 

throughout this state, it is imperative to be thinking ahead of this development and begin setting aside 

some areas that offer uncontaminated habitat, free of the heavy impacts from trucks, pipelines, 

compressor stations, noise, air emissions, and contaminated waters. 

Response: Changes in the final SEIS, which was released to the public on June 27, 2008, address the EU3 rating. Establishment of ACECs would not correct issues with ozone, visibility, and groundwater that 

are related to gas development in the Anticline and Jonah fields.

A27-690 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Comment: The proposed Wind River Front ACEC meets the “relevance criteria” for scenic and 

recreational values, fish and wildlife habitat values, and geologic values and “importance criteria” for fish 

and wildlife habitat values. However, the BLM has proposed for Special Management Area (SMA) 

designation for this area. The expanding level of energy development throughout the Upper Green River 

Basin threatens our ability to maintain current big game population objectives in future years. 

Management of wildlife populations in the Upper Green River Basin will require large contiguous areas 

of habitat set aside with management assurances from an ACEC designation. ACECs are the principal 

statutory tool by which the BLM can assure important surface resources are responsibly managed and 

sustained. 

Designation of the Wind River Front as an SMA, as currently proposed, would weaken the needed 

wildlife management emphasis for that area. An SMA designation is not defined by statute or regulation 

and may not have sufficient standing in future BLM planning and management actions. The ACEC 

provision will afford the strongest mandate to responsibly and effectively manage important wildlife 

resources affected by oil and gas development. If the Wind River Front becomes an SMA, the BLM will 

need to provide strong assurances that an SMA designation will receive meaningful consideration in 

planning, leasing, and permitting decisions. 

Response: ACEC designation would provide no special restrictions or set asides in the Wind River Front 

area. BLM recognizes the resource values present in this area. Management actions in the proposed plan 

of the final EIS provide for the area to be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. Restrictions would also be 

placed on geophysical exploration, location of centralized compression or other industrial facilities, and 

other surface disturbing activities. It is the management actions and restrictions placed on an area, not its 

label, that provide the management direction and protection of resources. 

Comment: In the Final EIS for the Pinedale Resource Area—Resource Management Plan (RMP), the 

Wind River Front is included in the proposed “unavailable management zone” for oil and gas leasing, but 

there are no assurances that the area could not be converted to a “traditional oil and gas zone” or 

“intensively developed oil and gas zone”. This area contains vital big game migration corridor and 

critically important sage-grouse habitats (leks, nesting and brood rearing, and wintering). 

Response: As specified in the EIS, an RMP amendment, including additional NEPA analysis, would be 

required to effect this conversion. 

Comment: Although the DRMP refers to maintaining the validity of pre-existing authorizations and lease 

rights, there are statements in the DRMP which indicate that new restrictions can be added as Conditions 

of Approval (COAs) to pre-existing authorizations, and that there may even be a “disallowing of 

activities” under existing property rights in some cases (p. 4-229). As stated in the Operators’ original 

comments on the DRMP (Comment letter dated June 15, 2007 at p. 3), a definitive statement regarding 

the validity of existing lease-hold rights and prior authorizations and that those will neither be infringed 

nor compromised needs be included in the description of all alternatives and carried forth in the Final 

RMP (FRMP). 

Response: BLM does not have authority to alter the terms of existing oil and gas leases. Text on page 2-

10 of the final EIS (2-9 of the draft EIS), in the Actions Common to All Alternatives, makes this clear. 

However, BLM has authority to apply COAs at the APD or site-specific approval stage to provide needed 

protection of surface resources. 

Comment: Operators’ prior concern with the lack of detail of the maps and charts is underscored by the 

new ACECs in this Supplemental. The lack of detail in these maps and charts makes it impossible to 

determine the extent of the restricted areas and potential impacts in order to allow for an effective analysis 

Pinedale RMP A27-691 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

of the alternatives. Operators again request that BLM provide more meaningful detail on the maps for all 

alternatives, and particularly on the Special Management Area maps. The maps do not capture the 

differences between the differently managed fields within the Alternatives and the varying restrictions. 

Response: The supplemental NOA does not contain any new information that was not included in the 

draft EIS. It includes only information that was not included in the original NOA for the draft EIS. The 

maps provided are appropriate for analysis of the alternatives at the planning area scale. Detailed map 

information is available at the Pinedale BLM office for use in comparing proposals to specific leases. 

Comment: Operators are concerned with the large number of acres that will be severely restricted or 

closed to energy development and other multiple uses. According to the Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) document, nearly 60% of acres identified as Very High, High or Moderate 

hydrocarbon potential have stringent restrictions (i.e. No leasing, No Surface Occupancy (NSO) or 

Controlled Surface Use (CSU)) under Alternative 3. Under Alternative 4, over 35% of the potential 

hydrocarbon acres are encumbered by major restrictions. If seasonal limitations are included, nearly 75% 

of the moderate to very high hydrocarbon potential acres are restricted under Alternative 4, the BLM’s 

preferred alternative. [See attached chart]. The ACECs and other special management areas contribute 

substantially to this loss of hydrocarbon potential. The DRMP does not adequately address the amount of 

resources that will be potentially unrecoverable under each category nor does it fully disclose all the 

management actions which will limit oil and gas development. Operators request that the BLM quantify 

the magnitude of the lost energy reserves caused by the restrictions. 

Response: BLM has authority to impose reasonable restrictions on oil and gas development that are 

necessary to protect or mitigate impacts on surface resources. The resources that would not be recovered 

under each alternative are addressed in the Minerals Impact Analysis sections of Chapter 4. 

Comment: BLM provides weak and therefore inadequate justification for proposing the additional 

ACECs and should provide adequate justification if it intends to go forward with these ACECs in the 

FRMP. These resource values already receive special management emphasis under existing regulations 

and policies (e.g., cultural resource protections, temporal and spatial protections for wildlife, soils and 

erosion guidelines, required wildlife presence surveys, etc.) and an ACEC designation is superfluous and 

unnecessary. It is inappropriate to apply several layers of redundant protections which result in excessive 

and cumulative restrictions. If the restrictions are retained in the FRMP, Operators request that the BLM 

quantify the magnitude of the lost energy reserves caused by the restrictions. 

Response: Justification for the ACECs proposed in the EIS are found in Appendix 4 and in the separate 

Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria for Existing and Proposed Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, found on the project website at 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents/PinedaleBLM_ACEC_Evaluation_Report.pdf. 

Also, the analysis of impacts on these areas under alternatives where special designation is not considered 

provides additional rationale. The potential quantity of oil and gas that could be recovered during the 

analysis period under each alternative is presented in Chapter 4. Reserves not produced during the 

planning analysis period are not “lost,” but would remain in place for potential future production. 

Comment: Ross Butte Ecosystem. This area is designated as an ACEC in Alternative 3 and a MA in 

Alternative 4. The restrictions are similar under both. 

Please disclose justification for creating this ACEC and in particular how it meets the “importance”

criteria which require that it have “substantial significance and values” and “qualities of more than 

A27-692 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

local significance and special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness or cause for concern.” 

(CFR 43 1610.7-2(a)(2)) 

Response: The rare plants found on these sites are very susceptible to surface disturbance and difficult or 

impossible to reclaim or revegetate.

Comment: Forty-four percent (44%) of the Ross Butte ACEC is under existing leases (p. 4-225). Please 

disclose how BLM will manage activities within these existing leases under the proposed restrictions, 

which include: 

• NSO and CSU to limit surface disturbance 

• Communication towers prohibited or restricted to existing sites only 

• ROW avoidance 

Response: NSO stipulations cannot be added to leases that do not include them. However, CSU 

stipulations, including operating standards and mitigation measures, could be applied at the APD stage. 

An existing communication site is located on Ross Butte. ROWs in avoidance areas would be handled as 

described in the Lands and Realty section of Chapter 2, Proposed Plan. 

Comment: Please clarify the statement “...closing the area to the operation of public land laws...” in 

Table 2-34 (p. 2-201). Provide specific details on the implications of this statement as well as the 

statutory authority for suspending or waiving public land laws via a DRMP. 

Response: Closing the area to the operation of the public land laws means that the lands would not be 

available for disposal or sale and would also not be available for exploration or production of locatable 

minerals (gold, silver, etc.) 

Comment: Explain why it is necessary to apply an NSO restriction on new leases in the area and why 

existing and customary protections provided for cultural resources, sensitive soils and plant species under 

existing regulations are insufficient. 

Response: The soils and plant communities in the Ross Butte area are such that reclamation would be 

extremely limited or unsuccessful. The NSO restriction as presented in the draft EIS has been removed. 

The area would be unavailable for new oil and gas leasing in the proposed plan of the final EIS. 

Comment: Please quantify the magnitude of the lost energy resource as a result of the restrictions applied 

under Alternative 3 and Alternative 4. 

Response: Quantification specifically for the Ross Butte area is not possible. However, Alternative 4 

would provide, for the planning area as a whole, 56 fewer wells over the analysis period of the plan. 

However, these wells would be expected to produce a total of 64 BCF more natural gas than under 

Alternative 1. 

Comment: White Tailed Prairie Dog (WTPD). The February 2008 Supplement to the Notice of 

Availability states that the “WTPD ACEC would not have a specific area but would involve a number of 

townships where WTPD habitat is found in future surveys.” Operators request that BLM define in the 

FRMP the specific areas for the WTPD and disclose the impacts associated with those areas as required in 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Response: It is not possible to define the specific areas that might be covered by the ACEC in Alternative 

3, because surveys for prairie dog towns have not been completed. 

Pinedale RMP A27-693 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Comment: Please disclose the justification for creating this ACEC and in particular how it meets the 

“importance” criteria stated above. Please provide citation for statement that “[t]he white-tailed prairie 

dog has been eliminated from as much as 90% of its former range” (Evaluation of Relevance and 

Importance Criteria for Existing and Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, p. 8). 

Response: The white-tailed prairie dog ACEC was determined by the Washington, D.C. office of BLM 

to meet the relevance and importance criteria for establishment of an ACEC. Therefore, BLM is required 

to consider the proposal in at least one alternative of the EIS. 

Comment: Provide scientific, peer reviewed justification for restrictions under Alternative 4 and explain 

why protections provided under existing regulations or under Wyoming State Statutes which not only 

govern the management of wildlife in the state but also reserves primacy over wildlife to the State of 

Wyoming provide insufficient management and protection. 

Response: Wyoming statutes governing wildlife populations do not address the habitats that those 

populations depend on for their existence. BLM’s responsibility in the equation is maintenance of wildlife 

habitats on the lands it administers. The protections applied are adapted from scientific research and other 

information and were developed in coordination with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and other 

cooperating agencies.

Comment: The DRMP indicates that the ACEC would be designated as shown on Map 2-26 but states 

that “[b]ecause complete surveys of prairie dog town locations are not available, the ACEC would include 

a list of townships where prairie dog towns might be located” (p. 2-108). Map 2-26 indicates that 11 

townships would be included in the initial ACEC designation. Please define all areas potentially affected 

by this ACEC; quantify the number of potential acres; and disclose the manner in which BLM will 

determine how and when areas will be included and/or added to the designated MA. 

Response: It is not possible to define the areas or to quantify acreage without complete surveys for prairie 

dog towns. 

Comment: Clarify the statement “[s]urveys for WTPD presence would be required prior to authorizing 

any activities” (February 2008 NOA). Will surveys be required throughout the entire DRMP area prior to 

authorizing activity? 

Response: Surveys would be required in areas likely to contain prairie dog habitats; generally, townships 

as identified on Map 2-26. 

Comment: The DRMP states that the ACEC would be “[a]vailable for oil and gas leasing with intensive 

management of surface disturbing activities” (p. 2-109). Please disclose how BLM proposes to manage 

specific and defined lease stipulations under an ACEC area that can be continuously changing 

Response: After survey of the proposed project area for presence and size of prairie dog towns, the 

ACEC area would be refined and COAs would be applied as appropriate. It would not be possible to 

attach stipulations to new leases until survey data is available. 

Comment: Disclose the “potential black-footed ferret introduction sites” which would be protected (p. 

4-223). Define what criteria must be met to propose a black-footed ferret (BFF) introduction in an 

existing oil and gas area and re-affirm that any BFF introduction will be under the “Non-essential 

Experimental Population” protocol of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

A27-694 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Response: No specific sites for ferret introduction have been proposed. However, it is likely that a 

proposal would be considered in the future, as recovery efforts for the black-footed ferret proceed. 

Establishment of a “Non-essential Experimental Population” would be the authority of USFWS, not 

BLM. 

Comment: Quantify the amount of oil and gas reserves that will be potentially affected by this ACEC, 

including reserves in future additions to the area. 

Response: Quantification specifically for the Ross Butte area is not possible. However, Alternative 4 

would provide, for the planning area as a whole, 56 fewer wells over the analysis period of the plan. 

However, these wells would be expected to produce a total of 64 BCF more natural gas than under 

Alternative 1. 

Comment: Green and New Fork River Corridors. The DRMP establishes the Green and New Fork 

Rivers SRMA (Summary p. iv and vi), yet provides very little detail on how the area would be managed. 

Map 2-26, Special Management Areas under Alternative 3, indicates the SRMA would have what appears 

to be a one-mile buffer on each side of the Green River and New Fork River. Please justify the resource 

sought to be protected by this one-mile buffer and why protections provided under existing regulations 

are insufficient. 

Response: The SRMA would be established to protect recreation access and values. It was determined 

that protection of a one-mile area on each side of the rivers is not necessary. An area of one-quarter mile 

on each side of the rivers, on BLM-administered public lands only, is proposed in the proposed plan in 

the final EIS. Existing regulations do not specifically provide for enhanced recreation facilities, access, 

and protection of riparian resources that would be accomplished under the SRMA designation. 

Comment: Map 2-33 (Alternative 4) indicates what appears to be a one-quarter mile buffer on each side 

of the Green and New Fork Rivers within this SRMA, and states that this area would be available for 

mineral leasing but with an NSO restriction. Please justify the DRMP statement that the NSO will mean 

“potential offsite development on existing leases unless it precludes a leaseholder/operator’s grant right 

to explore, develop, and produce the fluid mineral resource” (p. 4-71). Cite BLM authority to impose 

NSO on existing leases. Explain what would be necessary to establish that the NSO results in 

“preclusion.” 

Response: BLM would encourage operators of existing valid leases to locate wells and other facilities 

outside the NSO area. However, if that is not possible or feasible, BLM would not have the authority to 

preclude development of an existing valid oil and gas lease. 

Comment: Because SRMAs are designated ROW avoidance areas (Table 2-27, p. 2-165), please provide 

detail on how BLM would manage ROWs associated with existing leases and other authorizations. 

Response: ROWs in avoidance areas would be handled as described in the Lands and Realty section of 

Chapter 2, Proposed Plan. 

Comment: Please disclose the specific restrictions on oil and gas development under this SRMA. 

Response: COAs and other restrictions would be determined on a site- and project-specific basis as 

appropriate and needed to protect the resources of the SRMA. 

Pinedale RMP A27-695 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Comment: Please quantify the magnitude of the lost energy resource as a result of the restrictions applied 

under Alternative 3 and Alternative 4. 

Response: Quantification specifically for the Ross Butte area is not possible. However, Alternative 4 

would provide, for the planning area as a whole, 56 fewer wells over the analysis period of the plan. 

However, these wells would be expected to produce a total of 64 BCF more natural gas than under 

Alternative 1. 

Comment: First, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) is explicit that in the 

development and revision of an RMP the BLM is to give "priority" to the "designation" of ACECs. 43 

U.S.C. § 1712(c)(3). We believe the BLM must faithfully ensure compliance with this command. It must 

give priority to designating ACECs; it cannot just "consider" them or "analyze" them. And in our view 

"priority" means what it means: "[p]recedence, especially established in order of importance or urgency." 

THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1395 (4'" ed. 2000). 

As the Supreme Court has stated, "[i]t is, of course, a basic canon of statutory construction that we will 

not interpret a congressional statute in such a manner as to effectively nullify an entire section. See. e.g. 

Duncan, 533 U.S., at 174, 121 S.C!. 2120 ("[A] statute ought, upon the whole, 10 be so construed that, if 

it can be prevented, no clause. sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant" (citations 

omitted))." Dodd v. U.S., 545 U.S. 353, 370 (2005). Thus, the BLM should ensure it gives "priority" to 

"designating" ACECs in the Pinedale RMP. 

Response: Consideration and analysis of proposed, potential ACECs is the first step in the process. BLM 

considered and analyzed all proposed ACECs. Areas that met the relevance and importance criteria, and 

that clearly required additional, special management to protect the resources present, have been proposed 

for ACEC designation in the EIS. 

Comment: Second, in our view, if an area meets the BLM's relevance and importance criteria. it must be 

designated an ACEC-this is giving priority to ACEC designation as directed by FLPMA. BLM cannot 

designate the area as some other form of special management area, this is not giving priority to the 

designation of ACECs, it is giving priority to something else. Moreover, the BLM can always find 

alternative ways to provide protection for an area through the exercise of its general multiple use 

management authority, but this is not giving priority to ACEC designation as explicitly directed by 

Congress in FLPMA. Similarly, if an area meets the relevance and importance requirements for an 

ACEC, the entire area must be designated an ACEC. If the BLM's analysis of relevance and importance 

was based on the entire area of the potential ACEC the entire area must be designated an ACEC, unless at 

a minimum the BLM demonstrates that those relevance and importance characteristics will not be harmed 

or diminished by decreasing the size of the ACEC. 

Response: For areas that meet the relevance and importance criteria, BLM is required to analyze 

designation of an ACEC in at least one alternative. BLM is not required to establish an ACEC if it can be 

shown that the resources in question can be managed without ACEC status. 

Comment: Last, throughout the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Pinedale Field Office 

RMP Revision (DEIS), Alternative 3 provided for both more protective management of potential ACECs 

and for protection of the full area of ACECs. and for that reason the provisions in Alternative 3 should be 

adopted in preference to those in Alternative 4 (BLM's Preferred Alternative) because they better meet the 

requirement to both give priority to the designation of ACECs and give priority to their "protection," as 

mandated by FLPMA. 

Response: Alternative 3 is intended to provide more protective management of resources. Through the 

analysis of impacts for Alternatives 3 and 4, BLM has determined that the management actions included 

A27-696 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

in Alternative 4 provide appropriate protection for the areas and resources identified in the ACEC 

proposals. 

Comment: 1. Upper Green River should be designated an ACEC. This would be done under Alternative 

3 but not Alternative 4. Under Alternative 4, the area would be designated a Special Recreation 

Management Area (SRMA). DEIS at2~ 127 to -130. This SRMA would be considerably smaller than the 

ACEC designated under Alternative 3. Compare Maps 2-26 with Map 2-33. As noted above, nowhere has 

BLM provided any analysis showing that the relevance and importance values of this area would be 

protected with this smaller area. Perhaps more importantly, the SRMA would be solely devoted to 

catering to the recreational activities of people; there is no provision for protecting or addressing the other 

significant relevance and importance criteria found in this area, such as wildlife migration routes. See 

DEIS at 2-127 to -130. Having determined that the wildlife herds in this area are some of the largest and 

the migration routes some of the longest in the entire United States, the BLM cannot avoid making 

special provision to protect these wildlife values. 

Response: The Upper Green River area would be managed as a Special Recreation Management Area in 

the proposed plan. The area would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing and would have restrictions on 

surface disturbing activities, and vehicle use would be limited to designated roads. In addition, recreation 

use would be managed to preserve and coordinate with the recognized natural values of the area. BLM 

feels this is an appropriate approach to management of the many values in the Upper Green River area.

Comment: Ross Butte. Despite these incredible values and clearly very sensitive resources that "may be 

difficult or impossible" to reclaim. rather than designating the area an ACEC the BLM proposes to 

designate it a "management area" under Alternative 4. The conclusion offered to support this downgrade 

is that "[i]t was determined that management actions other than ACEC designation are more appropriate 

to protect values." DEIS Appendix 4 at A4-3. This is nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion. Where and 

when was this "determined"? Was the public allowed to participate in that determination as part of the 

NEPA process? How exactly is alternative management "more appropriate to protect values"? Where was 

that determination made or documented? Was it subject to public scrutiny under NEPA? Given the clearly 

great environmental values of this area the BLM must designate it an ACEC, and certainly if it does not it 

must provide a very careful explanation why this is not being done and why it is appropriate. That is 

current~ lacking; all that is provided is a naked assertion that alternative management is ~". "appropriate" 

despite the clear command of FLMPA to give priority to ACEC designation. 

Response: For areas that meet the relevance and importance criteria for establishment as ACECs, BLM is 

required to consider the ACEC proposal in at least one alternative of the EIS but is not required to 

establish the ACECs if management of the special resources present can be accomplished without ACEC 

status. ACEC status of itself is just a label and would not provide protection of resources. Meaningful 

protection would have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to achieve protection. This 

protection can be implemented without creating these large ACECs. See the management prescriptions 

for the Ross Butte and Wind River Front areas on page 2-156 (draft EIS) and prairie dog habitats on page 

2-149 (draft EIS).

Comment: Ross Butte. Under Alternative 3, where the area would be designated an ACEC, surface 

occupancy would be prohibited on erosive soils and in sensitive plant species habitats, and surface 

disturbance on slopes greater than ten percent would be prohibited. DEIS at 2-109. In contrast, under 

Alternative 4, where the area would be designated a "management area," development would still be 

allowed subject only to conditions of approval on existing oil and gas leases to "mitigate" impacts on soils 

and sensitive plant species habitats. Id. at 2-156. Yet as noted, BLM already knows that surface 

disturbance will be "difficult or impossible to reclaim or revegetate," making any claims of mitigation 

speculative at best. Furthermore, under Alternative 4 versus Alternative 3, the BLM would still allow oil 

Pinedale RMP A27-697 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

and gas leasing in this area (albeit subject to no surface occupancy) and would designate a substantial part 

of the area only Visual Resource Management (VRM) Category III, rather than VRM Category II as 

under Alternative 3. These limitations on the proposed management make it impossible to see how the 

BLM could have rationally determined "management area" designation would be "more appropriate to 

protect values" than ACEC designation. How do conditions of approval which by BLM's own admission 

may not be capable of mitigating impacts ensure that "vegetation unique in the Wyoming desert" and "a 

unique, rare cushion plant community not commonly found in other areas" will be protected? Clearly this 

area should be designated an ACEC, as provided for under Alternative 3. 

Response: For areas that meet the relevance and importance criteria for establishment as ACECs, BLM is 

required to consider the ACEC proposal in at least one alternative of the EIS but is not required to 

establish the ACECs if management of the special resources present can be accomplished without ACEC 

status. ACEC status of itself is just a label and would not provide protection of resources. Meaningful 

protection would have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to achieve protection. This 

protection can be implemented without creating these large ACECs. See the management prescriptions 

for the Ross Butte and Wind River Front areas on page 2-156 (draft EIS) and prairie dog habitats on page 

2-149 (draft EIS).

Areas that did not meet the relevance and importance criteria were not included for analysis as ACECs in 

any alternative. The Ross Butte area met the relevance and importance criteria for ACEC and is 

considered in Alternative 3 but would not be managed as an ACEC under the Preferred Alternative. The 

ACEC relevance and importance reviews are available on the RMP website at 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents/PinedaleBLM_ACEC_Evaluation_Report.pdf. BLM 

analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives regarding ACEC establishment and protections of special 

areas.

Comment: ...under Alternative 4. as an SRMA, the CCC Ponds would only be managed with 

recreational issues in mind. DEIS at 2-132 to - I34. It would not be managed to protect the recognized 

importance for migrating big game animals. In contrast. under Alternative 3. the area would be managed 

in a way that would protect big game migrating through the area as well as recreational values. Given the 

recognized significance of these herds and this migration route to the United States as a whole. we feel 

management must proceed as provided for under Alternative 3. The area should be unavailable for oil and 

gas leasing. and "projects [should] be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and designed to maintain the 

integrity of big game migration routes." DEIS at 2-110. Anything less is inappropriate given the 

recognized relevance and importance criteria which relate to these values. Moreover, the full 5,530 acres 

must be designated as an ACEC, as provided for under Alternative 3, rather than the unreasonably limited 

1,040 acres that would be designated an SRMA under Alternative 4. Again, the BLM has nowhere 

provided any analysis showing that ~ protection of less than the full extent of the CCC Ponds could allow 

for protection of the recognized relevance and importance values. 

Response: The language describing the ACEC process has been clarified in the final EIS. Five of the six 

proposed ACECs found in Chapter 3 are indeed included in Appendix 4 (Table A4-1). The CCC Ponds 

proposed ACEC was mistakenly omitted from Appendix 4. This ACEC has been included in the appendix 

in the final EIS. Other areas in Appendix 4 are discussed in Section 2.2.2. As stated on page A4-4, further 

information on each of the area’s qualifications under the relevance and importance criteria is available at 

the Pinedale Field Office and on the project website at www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale.

Migration bottlenecks are naturally occurring and are created by topography, not necessarily by fences. 

The CCC Ponds area is a documented bottleneck on the mule deer migration route along the base of the 

Wind River Mountains.

A27-698 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Comment: Wind River Front. As discussed above, having found the area meets the relevance and 

importance criteria, the BLM is not at liberty to not designate this area an ACEC. In addition, having 

offered no explanation as to how a smaller area would fully protect the recognized relevance and 

importance values, the BLM is also not at liberty to designate a smaller area for protection under 

Alternative 4 than would be designated under Alternative 3. In particular, the BLM must ensure full 

protection for the big game migrations that pass through the area twice each year, which "are some of the 

largest anywhere in the world." And as will be discussed in more detail below, this area is heavily used by 

sage grouse, which demands full protection. Given this magnitude of significance the BLM must protect 

this entire area as an ACEC, and provide protection otherwise as provided under Alternative 3. 

Response: Under Alternatives 3 and 4 the federal lands and mineral estates under BLM’s jurisdiction 

along the Wind River Front would be unavailable for leasing. The entire Jonah Field and the vast majority 

of the area within the boundary of the Pinedale Anticline EIS (July 2000) are currently leased and the 

leaseholders/operators have valid existing rights to develop and produce those leases. See the final EIS for 

management of the unleased lands within the PAPA EIS boundary. The decision record for Questar Yearround Drilling EA provides for a certain level of drilling within the mule deer crucial winter range within 

the PAPA EIS area.

Comment: White Tailed Prairie Dog ACEC. Having determined that "[a]ll remaining habitat areas are 

significant for the preservation of the species” Evaluation Report at 8 (emphasis added), the BLM is not at 

liberty to not afford the recognized white-tailed prairie dog colonies in the Pinedale Field Office special 

management protection as an ACEC. 

Response: Protections for white-tailed prairie dog habitats are found in the Wildlife section of Alternative 

4 (pages 2-149 and 2-150 of the draft EIS).

BLM cannot make areas currently leased for oil and gas development (such as portions of the Beaver 

Creek, Ross Butte, White-tailed Prairie Dog, and Wind River Front areas) “permanently off-limits to 

energy development.” Leaseholders have rights that BLM is legally bound to honor.

For areas that meet the relevance and importance criteria for establishment as ACECs, BLM is required to 

consider the ACEC proposal in at least one alternative of the EIS but is not required to establish the 

ACECs if management of the special resources present can be accomplished without ACEC status. ACEC 

status of itself is just a label and would not provide protection of resources. Meaningful protection would 

have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to achieve protection. This protection can 

be implemented without creating these large ACECs. See the management prescriptions for the Ross 

Butte and Wind River Front areas on page 2-156 (draft EIS) and prairie dog habitats on page 2-149 (draft 

EIS).

Comment: White Tailed Prairie Dog ACEC. At a minimum, under its Special Status Species Manual the 

BLM is required to take proactive management steps for the conservation of this species and under the 

terms of the Manual, conservation with respect to special status species means taking steps "such that 

there is no longer any ... need for continued listing as a special status species." BLM Manual §§ 

6840.06.C, Glossary of Terms (emphasis added). We are aware that BLM often requires surveys of 

prairie dog colonies for black-footed ferrets, and in the highly unlikely event that evidence of a ferret was 

found strong protective measures would be put in place, but seeking to protect the black-footed ferret is 

not BLM's obligation here; it must seek to protect the white-tailed prairie dog so as to remove it from its 

sensitive species list, as required by the Special Status Species Manual Clearly the way to do that is to 

designate the White-Tailed Prairie Dog ACEC, or at a minimum some other special management area 

(see below). Protective measures that are likely needed include limitations on above-ground structures 

Pinedale RMP A27-699 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

(including power lines) within a specified distance of prairie dog colonies or towns, and limitations on 

disturbing towns or colonies. See DEIS at 2-109 for other needed protective measures. 

Response: Alternative 4 provides management of white-tailed prairie dog habitats under the Wildlife 

Habitat Management section of Chapter 2. These management actions are essentially the same as those 

provided in the ACEC under Alternative 3, with the exception of acquisition of lands. Surveys for prairie 

dog presence would be required as a special status species. 

Comment: White Tailed Prairie Dog ACEC. ...failing to designate this ACEC is counter to both the 

Statewide Biological Opinion on black-footed ferret management and also to the recommendations of the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department as reflected in the Conservation Assessment. 

Response: Alternative 4 provides management of white-tailed prairie dog habitats under the Wildlife 

Habitat Management section of Chapter 2. These management actions are essentially the same as those 

provided in the ACEC under Alternative 3, with the exception of acquisition of lands. Surveys for prairie 

dog presence would be required as a special status species.

Comment: White Tailed Prairie Dog ACEC. The white-tailed prairie dog of course is also a BLM 

sensitive species which means that special management obligations attach, as discussed above. 

Designation of this ACEC is important because "[t]he white-tailed prairie dog has been eliminated from 

as much as 90% of its former range." Evaluation Report at 8. In addition "[ill1l remaining habitat areas 

are significant for the preservation of the species." Id. (emphasis added). 

Response: Alternative 4 provides management of white-tailed prairie dog habitats under the Wildlife 

Habitat Management section of Chapter 2. These management actions are essentially the same as those 

provided in the ACEC under Alternative 3, with the exception of acquisition of lands. Surveys for prairie 

dog presence would be required as a special status species.

Comment: White Tailed Prairie Dog ACEC. The DEIS presents conflicting information about the 

location and status of white- tailed prairie dog colonies in the Pinedale Field Office. The BLM makes no 

attempt to estimate how large this ACEC would be, and only provides locality generalized to Township 

and Range because it claims that it has only incomplete information. At the same time, the DEIS contains 

a map of known colonies and calculations of areas with oil and gas potential within the potential ACEC. 

DEIS at Map 3-21, 2-179, 2-187. The OEIS also states, "[m]ost of the known occurrences of the whitetailed prairie dog occur within the Jonah and Anticline Fields" and [m]ost of the known occurrences of 

white-tailed prairie dog towns exist in the Intensively Developed Fields" DEIS at 4-192, 4-205. In 

contrast, all of the other Field Offices in Wyoming where white-tailed prairie dog ACECs have been 

evaluated identified specific areas based on the best available information on white-tailed prairie dog 

locations. It is especially puzzling why the Pinedale Field Office would only include Townships and 

Ranges where white-tailed prairie dog colonies may be found since we believe that prairie dog mapping is 

more current, detailed, and extensive in this Field Office than many others. Our understanding is that 

prairie dog mapping associated with the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Field approvals was relatively 

thorough, and that there has been at least some ongoing monitoring in these areas. Regardless, RMP 

revision should be a time to fill any remaining data gaps so that the BLM may make an informed decision 

about land use allocations. The BLM cannot claim incomplete data as a means to avoid identifying areas 

where this species currently exists, which in some cases may be where oil and gas development is 

occurring. Potential impacts to oil and gas development possibilities are not a persuasive reason to not 

designate this ACEC. Consequently, the White-Tailed Prairie Dog ACEC should be designated as 

provided for under Alternative 3. 

A27-700 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Response: It is not possible to define the areas or to quantify acreage without complete surveys for prairie 

dog towns. 

Comment: It is our view that the BLM's conclusion that the Rock Creek Expansion, Beaver Creek 

Expansion, North Cottonwood Creek, South Cottonwood Creek, and South Beaver Watershed potential 

ACECs do not meet importance criteria is not well founded. In all of these cases the BLM determined that 

the areas met the relevance criteria (because the area provides habitat for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

(CRCT) but did not meet the importance criteria. 

Response: BLM analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives regarding ACEC establishment and 

protections of special areas. 

The ACEC relevance and importance reviews are available on the RMP website at 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents/PinedaleBLM_ACEC_Evaluation_Report.pdf. BLM 

analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives regarding ACEC establishment and protection of special 

areas. Water is the purview of the state. The recent discovery of the contaminated wells is an example of 

the monitoring system working.

Comment: Rock Creek Expansion, Beaver Creek Expansion, North Cottonwood Creek, South 

Cottonwood Creek, and South Beaver Watershed potential ACECs. ...if lack of genetic purity is 

advanced as a reason for not deeming these populations important, some consideration of the degree of 

purity should be provided. Arc these populations 99% pure, 95% pure, 75% pure, or only 50% pure? 

Considering this question seems highly relevant to any claim these populations arc not as "important" to 

the conservation of CRCT as the Beaver Creek and Rock Creek populations. The Conservation 

Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleurilicus) recognizes 

genetic purity ratings of B, B+, A-, and A, and ratings at these levels meet the intent of the policy for the 

conservation of the subspecies, populations with these ratings "are defined as conservation populations" 

and these populations are "important for conservation of the subspecies." See CRCT Conservation 

Agreement at 8,12,14. Absolute genetic purity would not seem to be a prerequisite for important 

conservation value to attach to a population of this subspecies. 

Response: Changes in the proposed plan regarding areas available for oil and gas leasing should address 

some of these concerns. It continues to be the feeling of BLM that, for instance, historic and potential 

CRCT habitats are spread throughout the planning area, and that these habitats should all be managed for 

the health of CRCT; management should not be limited to specific ACEC areas. Management actions can 

be applied without an ACEC label.

Comment: Rock Creek Expansion, Beaver Creek Expansion, North Cottonwood Creek, South 

Cottonwood Creek, and South Beaver Watershed potential ACECs. Similarly, as justification for not 

pursuing ACEC designation of these areas the ~ -J BLM stated "li]t was determined that CRCT habitat 

management actions should apply .10,: the planning area as a whole, rather than to only special 

management areas." DEIS N Appendix 4 at A4-2 and -3. This conclusory assertion seems unjustified. 

There is no clear rationale provided as to why the special management actions that will apply to the 

Beaver Creek and Rock Creek ACECs for the protection of CRCT should not also apply to other areas 

where this species is located, or why that is somehow difficult or .. impossible. See DEIS at 2-154 and -

155 (presenting the management actions that will apply in the Rock Creek and Beaver Creek ACECs). If 

streams containing CRCT arc "irreplaceable," Evaluation Report at 3, the elimination of individual 

populations "narrows the gene pool," ill", and streams still providing CRCT habitat and viable 

populations are "crucial to the health of the species and in preventing its listing under the ESA," id. at 4, it 

seems difficult to rationally justify not providing special management attention to these streams. Or said 

differently, if the general actions that will apply to the planning area as a whole are all that is required to 

Pinedale RMP A27-701 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

protect CRCT, it would seem there would be no need to provide any special protections in the Rock 

Creek and Beaver Creek ACECs, either, yet BLM has concluded otherwise for these areas. This differing 

approach needs to be carefully explained if it is to be maintained. 

Response: Changes in the proposed plan regarding areas available for oil and gas leasing should address 

some of these concerns. It continues to be the feeling of BLM that, for instance, historic and potential 

CRCT habitats are spread throughout the planning area, and that these habitats should all be managed for 

the health of CRCT; management should not be limited to specific ACEC areas. Management actions can 

be applied without an ACEC label. 

Comment: Miller Mountain, Wyoming Range Front, and la Barge Elk Winter Range. Unfortunately, 

these areas were not deemed to meet any of the importance criteria, which is likely why they were not 

recommended for ACEC designation. The BLM determined that these areas did not have more than 

locally significant qualities, did not have particularly fragile or sensitive resources, or were not in need of 

protection tti; satisfy national priority concerns or the mandates of FLPMA. Evaluation Report at 1920, 

22-23, 26-27. We disagree with this assessment and ask the BLM to reconsider it. At a minimum, where 

CRCT and sage grouse occur there is a national priority concern for their protection. We will not belabor 

the obviousness of this issue with respect to the sage grouse with its pending potential listing under the 

ESA and a host of federal and state management responses underway to protect the bird, but we would 

note that as BLM sensitive species, both the sage grouse and CRCT have special status and recognition 

under the BLM Special Status Species Manual provisions-that is, there is a national priority concern with 

these species due to their designation by the BLM as Special Status Species. And as noted above, in other 

potential ACECs where the CRCT exists the BLM has recognized that «[t]hose streams still providing 

habitat and viable populations are crucial to the health of the species and in preventing its listing under the 

ESA." Evaluation Report at 3, 4. We believe there is clearly a national priority concern with these species, 

which at a minimum implicates the Miller Mountain and Wyoming Range Front. See Evaluation Report 

at 22, 26 (noting CRCT and sage-grouse exist in these areas). Thus, these areas have importance value. 

Response: BLM analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives regarding ACEC establishment and 

protections of special areas.

The ACEC relevance and importance reviews are available on the RMP website at 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents/PinedaleBLM_ACEC_Evaluation_Report.pdf. BLM 

analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives regarding ACEC establishment and protection of special 

areas. Ecosystems can be described regardless of their ownership. There are very few roads. The 

description in the final EIS has been changed to say “largely roadless.” The riparian areas in the Miller 

Mountain area are more sensitive than in many other portions of the planning area because of their 

dependence on vegetation for physical stability of the system. Oil and gas leases cover less than half the 

area and do not negate the possibility of special management. The presence of oil and gas leases does not 

eliminate the option of management with VRM Class II objectives. Fort Hill is entirely on BLMadministered public lands in Section 12, T25N, R115W and Section 7, T25N, R114W. Because this area 

is on the “sheep side” of Deadline Ridge, and because the Slate Creek sheep trail traversed part of the 

area, it is known that much historic sheep grazing occurred. The authenticity of the sheepherder cairns has 

been verified.

Comment: Miller Mountain, Wyoming Range Front, and la Barge Elk Winter Range. in addition, crucial 

big game winter range exists in the Miller Mountain and Wyoming Range areas, Evaluation Report at 22, 

26. Official state of Wyoming policy is that big game crucial habitat is "vita]" and that vital habitat 

"directly limits" a wildlife community and impacts to these habitats "could result in a significant local or 

landscape level decline in species distribution, abundance, or productivity, and restoration or replacement 

is difficult and may not be possible, or may be possible only in the very long term." Exhibit 2. Under 

A27-702 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

FLPMA the BLM is obligated to ensure that BLM RMPs are "consistent" to the "maximum extent" with 

State policy such as this. 43 U.S.C. § l712(cX9). In addition, "State authority regarding fish and resident 

wildlife remains the comprehensive backdrop applicable" to wildlife management and the BLM must 

"assist the States in accomplishing their fish and wildlife resource plans." 43 C.F.R. §§ 24. I(a), 24.4(i)(2). 

Because this is a Department of Interior rule of national scope, this is a national policy. It is apparent that 

the mandates of FLPMA obligate the BLM to seek to implement State policy, meaning that at a minimum 

the Miller Mountain and Wyoming Range Front should be deemed to have important values because of 

the presence of state recognized and protected vital crucial winter range, making them suitable for 

designation as ACECs. Moreover, because the Miller Mountain area provides habitat for "one of only two 

populations of elk in the Pinedale Field Office that winter on native range," Evaluation Report at 22, it is 

apparent that this area has more than locally significant qualities and/or has especially rare or 

irreplaceable resources. We would note too that this same situation likely also applies to the La Barge Elk 

Winter Range because it and the Miller Mountain area overlap to a very considerable degree. See 

Evaluation Report at 18, 21. It seems unlikely that elk in the Miller Mountain area are not dependent on 

feedlots ~ while the elk in the La Barge Elk Winter Range are. 

Response: Ecosystems can be described regardless of their ownership. There are very few roads. The 

description in the final EIS has been changed to say “largely roadless.” The riparian areas in the Miller 

Mountain area are more sensitive than in many other portions of the planning area because of their 

dependence on vegetation for physical stability of the system. Oil and gas leases cover less than half the 

area and do not negate the possibility of special management. The presence of oil and gas leases does not 

eliminate the option of management with VRM Class II objectives. Fort Hill is entirely on BLMadministered public lands in Section 12, T25N, R115W and Section 7, T25N, R114W. Because this area 

is on the “sheep side” of Deadline Ridge, and because the Slate Creek sheep trail traversed part of the 

area, it is known that much historic sheep grazing occurred. The authenticity of the sheepherder cairns has 

been verified. 

Comment: The Mesa and Muddy Creek. As discussed above, and as will be discussed in even more detail 

below, we feel that an area containing significant sage grouse habitat, as The Mesa does, clearly meets the 

importance criterion due to the national priority concern regarding this species, as recognized in the BLM 

Sensitive Species Manual and elsewhere, particularly since "[w]estern Wyoming contains the largest 

remaining populations and most intact habitat for sage grouse in the West." Id. at 20. Furthermore, this 

area is recognized by the BLM as being crucial winter range for mule deer, raising again the need to 

comply with State policy in this regard and the FLPMA mandate that BLM do so. Moreover, this area is 

part of the world class pronghorn migration corridor beginning in Grand Teton National Park; as 

recognized elsewhere in the Evaluation Report, "[t]he big game migrations that pass through the Mesa 

area twice a year are some of the largest anywhere in the world. As many as 100,000 big game animals 

pass through this area during twice annual migrations." Evaluation Report at 6.3 We would also note that 

the Western Governor's association has adopted a policy calling for the preservation of key wildlife 

migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitats, so clearly there is more than local concern for protecting 

these resources and they have become a national (or at least west wide) priority. Exhibit 3. Given these 

values this area has importance. 

Response: ACEC status of itself is just a label and would not provide protection of wildlife migration 

corridors. Meaningful protection would have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to 

achieve protection. This protection can be implemented without creating these large ACECs. 

Management of wildlife habitats was conducted in the planning area as a cohesive whole, not limited to 

ACEC areas.

Comment: The Mesa and Muddy Creek. Similarly, we do not believe the conclusion that the Muddy 

Creek area does not have either relevance or importance values can be sustained. The area has "a high 

Pinedale RMP A27-703 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

density of archeological sites" and it includes crucial winter range for "one of only two populations of elk 

in the Pinedale area that winter on native range." Evaluation Report a1 23. Given the level of importance 

attached to crucial winter ranges by the State of Wyoming, BLM's corresponding obligations under 

FLPMA and Department of Interior€ regulations regarding primacy in wildlife management, and the 

desire to preserve crucial wildlife habitats that is the policy or the Western Governor's Association, we 

feel it is clear this area has both relevance and importance. 

Response: ACEC designation would not provide the protections discussed. Management actions 

presented on a larger scale in the final EIS would provide more appropriate protection for important 

habitats.

Comment: The Mesa and Muddy Creek. And BLM's claim that elk in this area can just "have access to 

the Bench Corral elk feedground" and thus "are not dependent on this winter range" is outrageous. 9 

Evaluation Report at 23. We are breathless and almost unable to respond after reading that statement. If 

nothing else, it is totally at odds with the State of Wyoming's policy which recognizes native crucial 

winter range as "vital." Exhibit 2. It is also totally at odds with the policy of Western Governors which 

seeks to preserve crucial wildlife habitats. Exhibit 3. Moreover the policy of the United States of America 

as declared by is that "the public lands be managed in a manner ... that will provide food and habitat for 

fish and wildlife ...." 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8). There is no suggestion here that Congress contemplated 

feedlots as a fungible substitute for crucial native ranges that can support wintering wildlife. And BLM 

recognizes as a relevance criteria the presence of a "natural process or system," making it clear that native 

ranges capable of supporting wildlife have values that feedlots do not have. The BLM should excise this 

outrageous statement from the Pinedale RMP and make its relevance and importance determinations for 

Muddy Creek accordingly. 

Response: BLM is not advocating the continuance of feedgrounds with this statement, merely stating the 

situation as it is. While the elk feedgrounds exist, and while fences and development obstruct elk access 

to historic winter ranges in the Little Colorado desert and other areas, it is difficult to argue the vital 

importance of crucial elk winter ranges in the Pinedale planning area. 

Comment: However, as we stated in our DEIS comments, because the management direction in the 

Trapper’s Point area would "provid[e] for contiguous wildlife habitat, wildlife refuge areas, and migration 

routes," and the area is "a major funnel, or bottleneck, for mule deer and pronghorn in their winter 

migrations to and from winter range" and the area is threatened with constriction due to development and 

contains very significant archeological sites, maximum protection of this area is warranted. DEIS 

Comments at 2224 (quoting DEIS at 2-47, 2-49, and 3~J 36). Moreover, as we also pointed out, the BLM 

recognizes the New fork Potholes as a "unique subsection of the Wind River Front" due to the presence of 

the glacial potholes which are of value to wildlife and that "[t]he values in this area need special emphasis 

to be effectively managed." DEIS Comments at 26 (citing DEIS at 3-136, A4-2). Given these values and 

the other attributes recognized in the Evaluation Report, it is our view the management prescriptions that 

would be applied under Alternative 3 to these areas should be adopted in preference to those provided for 

in Alternative 4. There are at least two reasons we adopt this view. First, at least with regard to Rock 

Creek, Beaver Creek, and Trapper's Point, the ACEC designated under Alternative 3 would be 

considerably larger than that designated under Alternative 4. As discussed above, BLM's determinations 

of relevance and importance values were based on consideration of the entire potential areas of these 

ACECs, not subdivisions of them, so BLM is not at liberty to reduce the size of these ACECs because 

there is no guarantee that the recognized relevance and importance values that serve as the basis for 

creating the ACEC will be preserved if a smaller area is designated. 

A27-704 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Response: The Beaver Creek ACEC is being maintained at its current size, not reduced. Trapper’s Point 

is being established new, not reduced. Rock Creek ACEC is being slightly reduced to the actual size of 

the watershed. 

Comment: (Rock Creek, Beaver Creek, and Trapper's Point ) At a minimum, the BLM must carefully 

consider whether the relevance and importance values would be maintained if a smaller area were 

designated, and we are unaware of any such analysis in the DEIS.

Response: This analysis is presented in the impact analyses for the proposed areas in Chapter 4. 

Comment: Furthermore, at least with respect to Beaver Creek, the area would receive lesser protection 

under Alternative 4 than it would under Alternative 3. Beaver Creek would not be subject to no surface 

occupancy oil and gas leases under Alternative 4 as it would be under Alternative 3. OEIS at 2-107, ~154. 

Under Alternative 3 the area would be managed as VRM Class II while under Alternative 4 it would be 

VRM Class III and IV . Id. at 2-1 07, -155. We believe the BLM should adopt the protective provisions of 

Alternative 3 for application to the Beaver Creek ACEC in order to assure the recognized relevance and 

importance values are protected. We believe the BLM has an obligation 10 do this under the terms of the 

Special Status Species Manual and the CRCT Conservation Agreement discussed above.

Response: The Beaver Creek ACEC area, including the expansion area considered in Alternative 3, is 

fully leased for oil and gas development. The area includes several producing wells. There is no 

indication that the leases would expire in the foreseeable future. The area contains existing maintained 

roads for access to existing wells. It is reasonable to allow use of these roads in conducting geophysical 

exploration and other activities. BLM feels that conservation of CRCT habitat should occur over its entire 

range, not in restricted areas with ACEC designations.

Comment: Extension of the Trapper’s Point ACEC Farther North-Cora Butte. While we appreciate that 

the BLM apparently intends to designate the Trapper’s Point ACEC so as to protect migrating mule deer 

and pronghorn (although we feel it should be larger than proposed under Alternative 4), we feel that 

recognition of this migration route should be extended farther to the north. In particular we feel the Cora 

Butte Mule Deer and Pronghorn Transition Range (CBTR) should also be recognized and protected. In 

2003 and 2004, many groups party to these comments submitted three documents to the BLM as part of 

the scoping process for this RMP revision. One of those documents was entitled "Critical Condition: 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECS) for Big Game in the Upper Green River Valley, 

Wyoming" (Critical Condition Report). Another was a report prepared by Western Ecosystems 

Technology, Inc. (WEST) entitled "An Evaluation of the 1988 BLM Pinedale Resource Management 

Plan, 2000 BLM Pinedale Anticline Final EIS and Recommendations for the Current Revision of the 

Pinedale Resource Management Plan" (WEST Report). And the third was entitled "A Responsible Energy 

Development Alternative for Consideration in the ~ Bureau of Land Management Pinedale Resource 

Area Resource Management Plan g Revision" (RED Report). We adopt and incorporate those comments 

by this reference into these comments. 

We ask that the BLM determine whether the C8TR meets the relevance and importance criteria, and if it 

does to designate this area an ACEC. We would note that extending the protection of this migration 

corridor as far to the north as possible would help compliment current Forest Service efforts to protect 

this migration corridor on Forest Service lands. See http://www.fs.fed.uslr4/btnf7projectsl 

2008/pronghomllcner.pdf (presenting Forest Service announcement of effort to revise the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest Plan to protect the pronghorn migration route). It would also help ensure continuity with 

protection of the Upper Green River and CCC Ponds proposed ACECs, which have great valued for 

migrating big game, as well as migration corridors along the Wind River Front (sec discussions of these 

areas above). 

Pinedale RMP A27-705 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Response: For areas that meet the relevance and importance criteria for establishment as ACECs, BLM is 

required to consider the ACEC proposal in at least one alternative of the EIS but is not required to 

establish the ACECs if management of the special resources present can be accomplished without ACEC 

status. ACEC status of itself is just a label and would not provide protection of resources. Meaningful 

protection would have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to achieve protection. This 

protection can be implemented without creating these large ACECs. See the management prescriptions 

for the Ross Butte and Wind River Front areas on page 2-156 (draft EIS) and prairie dog habitats on page 

2-149 (draft EIS).

Comment: Finally, the BLM should also recognize the potential economic significance of ACEC 

designation. As things stand currently, we do not believe the BLM has adequately recognized the 

potential benefits to local economies that could result from ACEC designation or the potential costs of 

permitting oil and gas development to occur at the expense of the special values in these areas. Attached 

as Exhibit 6 to the DEIS Comments were the comments of economists Michele Haefele and Joe 

Kerkvleit. We ask the BLM to consider those comments as it determines the economic benefits that could 

now from ACEC designation. 

Response: BLM recognizes the importance of the mostly nonmarket economic values present in the areas 

evaluated for ACEC designation. However potential economic value is not part of the relevance and 

importance criteria assessed. BLM considered and analyzed all proposed ACECs. Areas that met the 

relevance and importance criteria, and that clearly required additional, special management to protect the 

resources present, have been proposed for ACEC designation in the EIS. 

Comment: The Ryegrass Area. it is our view this~ area meets the relevance and importance criteria and 

should be designated an ACEC. ask the BLM to consider it for designation as an ACEC. Furthermore, 

this area includes the Muddy Creek proposed ACEC. Consequently our comments above regarding this 

area apply here as well, and we think this just emphasizes the importance of designating this area an 

ACEC. The value of this area includes crucial winter range for "one of only two populations of elk in the 

Pinedale area that winter on native range." Evaluation Report at 23. We feel there is little doubt this area 

meets the relevance and importance criteria for ACEC designation. There are significant historical 

resources, wildlife resources, and natural processes or systems (such as big game crucial winter ranges 

and animals meeting the challenges of that season, elk feeding on native rangeland instead of at feedlots, 

sage· grouse leks, and overlapping crucial ranges for several species). Thus it is relevant. It is important 

because the presence of sage-grouse breeding habitat makes it sensitive and fragile, and because there are 

national priority concerns or mandates of FLPMA to protect crucial ranges, as reflected in Department of 

Interior regulations regarding state primacy in wildlife management, Wyoming's policy regarding "vital" 

crucial winter ranges (Exhibit 2), the policies of the Western Governors' Association regarding protection 

of crucial habitats (Exhibit 3), and the command of FLPMA for BLM to recognize and abide by these 

slate policies to the extent possible, 43 U.S.C. § 1712(e)(9). Thus, we believe this area meets both the 

relevance and importance criteria. 

Response: The Trapper’s Point area is unavailable for leasing, as outlined in Alternative 4 of the draft 

EIS. In addition, in the final EIS, the Ryegrass and Bench Corral (Cottonwood) areas would be 

unavailable for leasing. 

For areas that meet the relevance and importance criteria for establishment as ACECs, BLM is required to 

consider the ACEC proposal in at least one alternative of the EIS but is not required to establish the 

ACECs if management of the special resources present can be accomplished without ACEC status. ACEC 

status of itself is just a label and would not provide protection of resources. Meaningful protection would 

have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to achieve protection. This protection can 

be implemented without creating these large ACECs. See the management prescriptions for the Ross 

A27-706 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Butte and Wind River Front areas on page 2-156 (draft EIS) and prairie dog habitats on page 2-149 (draft 

EIS).

Comment: The Ryegrass Area. To protect these important values we feel this area should be designated 

as unavailable for future oil and gas leasing. In addition, management should focus on the maximum 

exercise of BLM retained rights in areas that have been leased. 

Response: The Ryegrass area would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing in the proposed plan in the 

final EIS. 

Comment: The Cottonwood Area. We feel there is little doubt this area meets the relevance and 

importance criteria for ACEC designation. There are wildlife resources, and natural processes or systems 

(such as big game crucial winter ranges and animals meeting the challenges of that season, parturition and 

calving areas, sage-grouse leks). And increasingly the presence of large areas of undisturbed sagebrush is 

a "natural system" of great significance. Thus the Cottonwood Area is relevant. It is important because the 

presence of sage-grouse breeding habitat makes it sensitive and fragile, and because there are national 

priority concerns or mandates of FLPMA to protect crucial ranges, as reflected in Department of Interior 

regulations regarding state primacy in wildlife management, Wyoming's policy regarding "vital" crucial 

winter ranges (Exhibit 2), the policies of the Western Governors' Association regarding protection of 

crucial habitats (Exhibit 3), and the command of FLPMA for BLM to recognize and abide by these state 

policies to the extent possible, 43 U.S.C. § I712(c)(9). Thus, we believe this area meets both the relevance 

and importance criteria. To protect these important values we feel this area should be designated as 

unavailable for future oil and gas leasing. In addition, management should focus on the maximum 

exercise of BLM' retained rights in areas that have been leased. 

Response: The Trapper’s Point area is unavailable for leasing, as outlined in Alternative 4 of the draft 

EIS. In addition, in the final EIS, the Ryegrass and Bench Corral (Cottonwood) areas would be 

unavailable for leasing. 

For areas that meet the relevance and importance criteria for establishment as ACECs, BLM is required to 

consider the ACEC proposal in at least one alternative of the EIS but is not required to establish the 

ACECs if management of the special resources present can be accomplished without ACEC status. ACEC 

status of itself is just a label and would not provide protection of resources. Meaningful protection would 

have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to achieve protection. This protection can 

be implemented without creating these large ACECs. See the management prescriptions for the Ross 

Butte and Wind River Front areas on page 2-156 (draft EIS) and prairie dog habitats on page 2-149 (draft 

EIS).

Comment: Fontenelle Elk Winter Range. This area provides winter and transitional ranges for elk, mule 

deer, pronghorn, elk and moose, virtually the entire panoply of western Wyoming's remarkable big game 

endowment. Evaluation Report at 19. That is a remarkable degree of "co-occurrence" that the BLM 

should recognize and protect. CRCT also occupy at least some of the area, and the crucial elk winter 

ranges provide forage for "one of only two populations of elk in the Pinedale Field Office area that winter 

on native range." rd. at 22. Again, these additional values emphasize the validity of designating the 

Fontenelle Elk Winter Range an ACEC. There are historical or cultural resources, wildlife resources, and 

natural processes or systems (such as big game crucial winter ranges and animals meeting the challenges 

of that season, sage-grouse leks, and big game using native ranges rather than feedlots). Thus the 

Fontenelle Elk Winter Range is relevant. It is important because the presence of sage-grouse breeding 

habitat makes it sensitive and fragile, as does the presence of CRCT in some areas. It is also a national 

priority concern or there are mandates of FLPMA that must be fulfilled because of the presence of crucial 

ranges, as reflected in Department of Interior regulations regarding state primacy in wildlife management, 

Pinedale RMP A27-707 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Wyoming's policy regarding "vital" crucial winter ranges (Exhibit 2), the policies of the Western 

Governors' Association regarding protection of crucial habitats (Exhibit 3), and the command of FLPMA 

for BLM to recognize and abide by these Slate policies to the extent possible, 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(9). 

Given these values we believe the Fontenelle Elk Winter Range should be designated an ACEC with 

management direction that the area be unavailable for future oil and gas leasing. And where there are 

existing oil and gas leases, the BLM should exert its substantial retained rights to the maximum extent 

possible to ensure protection of these resources, as discussed in detail on pages 10-19 of our DEIS 

Comments. Protection for the CRCT must be assured, and special protection should be focused on areas 

of big game "co-occurrence." 

Response: Additional language specifying how the oil and gas management areas would work, and how 

they could be changed over time, has been provided in the final EIS. Limiting the pace of development by 

disallowing new fields until existing fields are complete denies lease holders the enjoyment of their oil 

and gas lease rights. Seasonal stipulations protect wildlife individuals, not habitats. In areas where 

habitats are compromised by dense drilling or other activities, seasonal stipulations provide diminishing 

benefits as wildlife abandon the habitats. Oil and gas leasing is a discretionary decision. Withdrawal is not 

required to make areas unavailable for leasing. The EIS evaluates all the areas suggested for 

unavailability for oil and gas leasing. The use of clean technologies and environmentally protective 

practices is included in the EIS as best management practices and would be implemented wherever 

practical.

Comment: The Lander Trail. the BLM has in place the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails 

Management Plan, and ..the overall goal of BLM management is to manage the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer 

Trails in a manner to protect the quality of the cultural, natural, and historic values, and to protect certain 

trail corridors in their natural condition so as to provide for outdoor recreation and public use." Given 

these obligations it seems clear to us that the Lander Trail segments in the Pinedale Field Office should be 

considered for ACEC designation. And we think there is little doubt this area meets the relevance and 

importance criteria for ACEC designation. There is no doubt it is a significant historic resource of 

national significance. It is important because it clearly has more than local significance. The remaining 

traces of the trail are also especially fragile, sensitive, irreplaceable, and vulnerable to adverse change. 

Moreover, the BLM's proposed management actions fall far short of what would be provided under 

Alternative 3, which would designate VRM Class II within three miles of the trail, make areas within one 

mile of the trail unavailable for oil and gas leasing, and prohibit surface occupancy within one mile of the 

trail. DEIS at 2-76 to -77. We feel that if the BLM considered the Lander Trail for ACEC designation and 

made the accompanying relevance and importance determinations it might well extend these greater 

protections to the Lander Trail. We certainly believe these greater protections are warranted due to the 

BLM's responsibilities under FLPMA, the National Trails System Act of 1968, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, the MOU (Exhibit 4), and the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails 

Management Plan. Finally, we also note that that the BLM has designated ACECs for the protection of 

National Historic Trails elsewhere in Wyoming. For example, the Rock Springs Field Office has 

designated the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC for the protection of the values of the National 

Historic Trails and other historic resources in this area. So there is certainly precedent for BLM 

recognizing the need to consider historic trails for ACEC designation.

Response:. You are correct. The Shell/Ultra Lander Trail PA is found in the recently published draft 

SEIS for the Anticline. This PA is published as an appendix to the SEIS and has been referenced in the 

final EIS. Overall, we are trying to incorporate National Historic Trail setting management in this RMP in 

a more holistic manner. See also the comments received by the National Park Service, the Oregon 

California Trails Association, and the Wyoming SHPO for National Historic Trails recommendations.

A27-708 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

You are correct. The Lander Trail from Buckskin Crossing to U.S. Highway 191 and the Sublette Cutoff 

might qualify as rural historic landscapes. BLM will pursue these locales; the other locales you mention 

do not appear to possess cultural resource values that lend themselves to Rural Historic Landscape 

designation.

ACEC designation for the 4,000 acres of the Trapper’s Point area is a good start. BLM has been 

encouraged to consider National Historic landmark status for this area and feels there is merit in this 

recommendation as well. Also, the Lander Trail from Buckskin Crossing to U.S. Highway 191 might 

qualify. BLM will pursue these locales; however, the other locales you mention do not appear to possess 

cultural resource values that lend themselves to Rural Historic Landscape designation.

The following text has been added to the Cultural Resource Management section under Actions Common 

to All Alternatives (draft EIS page 2-6): “Management of the Lander Trail and trail setting within the 

boundaries of the Pinedale Anticline Project Area would be consistent with the Lander Trail 

Programmatic Agreement.”

Comment: Greater Sage-Grouse ACEC(s). With that in mind, we propose that at a minimum all 75th 

percentile peak male lek population areas be designated a Greater Sage-Grouse ACEC(s). Exhibit 5 at 

Figures I, 3, and 4. This could be done with minimal affect on oil and gas development areas, and 

significant portions of these areas are not leased at this time. The BLM should fully consider the maps in 

Exhibit 6 as well as those in Exhibit 5 as it moves toward recognition of a Greater Sage-Grouse ACEC. 

At a minimum this ACEC would meet the relevance ... criteria for fish and wildlife resources and natural 

processes or systems. The sage-grow is of course being considered for listing under the ESA and is a 

BLM sensitive species,.._ Activities at leks-a unique and interesting natural process-and the leks 

themselves ~ essential to maintaining this species and the core areas shown in Exhibits 5 and 6 are based 

on lek attendance. Likewise, designation of the a Greater Sage-Grouse ACEC would have more than local 

significance, and would protect a resource that is clearly fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, 

unique, endangered, threatened or vulnerable to adverse change. Protection of the sage-grouse and 

important sage-grouse habitat is also recognized as being needed to satisfy national priorities or being 

needed to carry out the mandates of FLPMA. Thus, this ACEC would meet the importance criterion. The 

sage grouse is clearly of region wide and even national concern; its protection is far more than a local 

concern. That it is recognized as a BLM sensitive species and is being considered (again) for ESA listing 

tells us we are dealing with a rare and sensitive resource. Wyoming is widely recognized as the core of 

sage-grouse occurrence nationally, and as noted above the Upper Green River Valley is the most 

significant area for sage-grouse occurrence in the state. The Upper Green River Valley is the best of the 

best for sage grouse conservation purposes. And that the bird is subject to vast amounts of attention and 

concern from every wildlife agency in the West and even nationally when the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and BLM are considered tells us protection of this bird is demanded as a national priority. It is important. 

Consequently, we believe this proposed ACEC clearly meets the relevance and importance criteria, and 

thus should be designated in the Pinedale RMP. Core areas must be recognized and protected, no surface 

occupancy areas must be of sufficient size (scale), oil and gas development must be done in a phased 

manner, timing stipulations must be improved, and well pad densities must be limited. Id. Core areas that 

are not currently subject to lease should not be leased, and in leased areas the BLM should exert its 

retained rights the maximum extent possible, as discussed above. If the Governor releases needed 

conservation measures for sage-grouse conservation, as expected, those should be full considered. See 

Exhibit 6. Recently, the Governor has indicated his view on some needed conservation measures. Exhibit 

8.

Response: ACEC status of itself is just a label and would not provide protection of wildlife migration 

corridors. Meaningful protection would have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to 

achieve protection. This protection can be implemented without creating these large ACECs. 

Pinedale RMP A27-709 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Management of wildlife habitats was conducted in the planning area as a cohesive whole, not limited to 

ACEC areas.

The Wind River Front Management Area covers this area to protect important sagebrush habitats for 

sage-grouse lekking, nesting, and brood rearing; and important mule deer and pronghorn migration and 

seasonal habitats. Potential for oil and gas development in this area is low, and undisturbed, landscapescale sagebrush habitats are needed in areas other than the Jonah and Anticline gas fields to provide 

habitats for sagebrush-dependent wildlife species.

Comment: Pinedale Anticline Project Area Aquifer ACEC. The numerous aquifers underlying the 

Pinedale Anticline Project Area constitute a significant groundwater resource at risk from oil and gas 

development activities. Special management attention is needed to ensure protection of this important and 

irreplaceable resource. Consequently, we believe the aquifers underlying the Pinedale Anticline Project 

Area should be designated an ACEC. Following is a point-by-point consideration of how this area meets 

the BLM's relevance and importance criteria: 

Relevance: 

I) Significant historic. cultural or scenic value: NA 

2) Fish and wildlife resources: NA 

3) Natural processes: Meets criterion. The groundwater resource is a significant natural process or system. 

See. Exhibit 9 at 10, 4 ("EPA believes it is important to sustain and protect quality drinking water 

supplies in time of increased demand for water and especially in times of drought." "The Wyoming State 

Engineer has identified 4000 points of use within the PAPA."). "Groundwater resources are important in 

the PAPA, with wells supplying domestic and stock water to rural residences in areas far from perennial 

streams. Groundwater also partially supplies drilling water to the Operators." Revised Daft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Pinedale Anticline Project (hereinafter, Revised Draft SEIS) at 3-

80. 

4) Natural hazards: NA 

Importance 

1) Has more than locally significant qualities: Meets criterion. Produced water discharges to the Colorado 

River system and contamination creates a "cause for concern, especially compared with any similar 

resource" that is not threatened by oil and gas drilling and resultant contamination. "The PAPA is in the 

upper Colorado River Basin, for which special regulation has been enacted to control and mitigate river 

water salinity, in order to fulfill treaty obligations with Mexico. 

The CRBSCF identified rapidly expanding energy development in the Upper Colorado River Basin as a 

high-priority issue. This is because it has the potential of an adverse effect on achieving the adopted 

numeric salinity standards, which would violate the water-quality salinity- based standards and endanger 

downstream water users, and potentially affect the United States' agreement with Mexico." Revised Draft 

SEIS at 3-86. 

2) Has fragile, sensitive. or vulnerable qualities. Meets criterion. Circumstances created by oil and gas 

development pose significant threat to "irreplaceable" groundwater resources which, as shown by 

monitoring studies, arc "vulnerable adverse change." Other threats include aquifer drawdown and disposal 

of produced water. "Disposal of water is an issue that has recently developed in the planning area. Large 

A27-710 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

amounts of water can be generated from conventional or CBNG wells as is discussed more thoroughly in 

Section 3.7. This water can be saline and/or sodic. Salts that arc mobilized in the Green River portion of 

the planning area, which constitutes the majority of the land surface, eventually into the Colorado River. 

Salinity levels in the Colorado River are a regional, national, and international issue. Injection of 

produced waters into geologic formations is a potential avenue of disposal." See DEIS at 3-112. "Natural 

gas exploration and production has required water for drilling, in the quantity of approximately 20,000 

bbl per gas well. Most of this drilling water has been obtained from water supply wells installed in the 

Wasatch Formation aquifer ranging from 200 lo 1,000 feet in depth. Water for drilling is also obtained 

from recycled produced water. Some groundwater is used for dust control. The quantity of water used 

varies widely between Operators, with estimates for 2006 ranging from 10,000 to 20,000 barrels per day 

(bbl/day)." See Revised Draft SEIS at 3-83. 

3) National priority concern or mandate. Meets criterion. Protection of water quality and quantity in the 

Colorado River Basin is an issue of national concern and subject to many national mandates, such as 

those of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. See Revised Draft SEIS at 3-86. 

4) Concerns about safety and public welfare. Meets criterion. As indicated by the EPA rating letter, and 

language in the Revised Draft SEIS, there is increasing evidence of public health and safety issues related 

to this groundwater resource, particularly due to benzene contamination that is being detected. Exhibit 9; 

Revised Draft SEIS at 3-85 to 3-84, 4-100 to 4-10 I. ACEC designation would raise public awareness 

about this problem, and help focus appropriate management action on solutions. 

5) Human life, safety, or property threats. Meets criterion. Contamination of groundwater used for 

domestic purposes including drinking water poses a significant threat to human life and safety; 

contamination of groundwater used for other purposes such as stock watering and industrial use is a threat 

to property, possibly including water right". "The monitoring data suggest that current drilling and 

production activities on the PAPA have contributed to contamination of an aquifer used as a drinking 

water source. Existing benzene contamination exceeding the Drinking Water Standard (maximum 

concentration level or MCL) in two wells was attributed to oil and gas exploration activities in the 

Revised Draft SEIS. Further, benzene and other hydrocarbons have been detected in 88 of the 

approximately 230 water supply wells monitored.••• Based upon the ~ extent of contamination of these 

two wells completed in an aquifer used as a source of drinking water and benzene contamination in 

approximately one third the other wells monitored, EPA is concerned about the significance of existing 

and potential future impacts associated with activities in the PAPA. EPA believes that such impacts are 

environmentally unsatisfactory." Exhibit 9 at 4. "The Revised Draft SEIS provides mitigation measures 

intended to reduce impacts to groundwater. These measures, however, were not identified as necessary 

nor were they evaluated as to their effectiveness in any of the alternatives. As the source of the 

widespread contamination remains unclear, it is difficult to identify and implement appropriate and 

effective mitigation measures to protect valued groundwater supplies. EPA recommends that where 

impacts have occurred or may reasonably be expected to occur to groundwater sources as a result of oil 

and gas production, including but not limited to hydraulic fracturing practices, an effective and 

enforceable mitigation plan should be developed. The mitigation plan could specifically include plans for 

replacement of quality water to water users if necessary. Exhibit 9 at 4.

Response: Water is the purview of the State of Wyoming. Total depletions are more appropriately 

addressed at the field level document rather than the RMP.

The nearest existing federal oil and gas lease to the Green River Ranches areas is located on the west side 

of the Green River about three-quarters of a mile west of the Warren Bridge Campground. Under 

Alternatives 3 and 4, the federal land and mineral estate in the Green River Ranches area would be 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing or new leases would be unavailable for surface occupancy. The 

Pinedale RMP A27-711 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

specifics of drilling operations would be addressed through project-level or site-specific NEPA analysis. 

BLM does require operators to use fresh water drilling techniques to drill through all known fresh water 

aquifers encountered. BLM also requires the operators to set surface casing through the fresh water zones 

and then cement the backside of the surface casing from the total depth of the casing back to surface to 

seal the encountered aquifers for the well bore.

Comment: At a minimum a "White-Tailed Prairie Dog Wildlife Management Area," "Wyoming Range 

Front Management Area," and "LaBarge Elk Winter Range Management Area" should be created, for 

example. Furthermore, several of the areas we discussed above that were not even considered for ACEC 

designation should be recognized as demanding at least some form of special management. These are the 

Ryegrass, Cottonwood, Fontenelle Elk Winter Range, Lander Trail, Greater Sage-Grouse Core Areas, and 

Pinedale Anticline Aquifer areas. These areas also clearly demand special management recognition in our 

view. In addition, in all cases we feel that the entirety of these areas should be designated for special 

management, not subsets of them (as is often done under Alternative 4 in comparison to the provisions 

under Alternative 3). We feel that if the BLM designates a special management area it should ensure that 

the entirety of the special values sought to be protected are in fact protected, and it should only eliminate 

portions of these areas from protection if it documents that they are not needed to fully protect the special 

values that are present. 

Response: ACEC status of itself is just a label and would not provide protection of wildlife migration 

corridors. Meaningful protection would have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to 

achieve protection. This protection can be implemented without creating these large ACECs. 

Management of wildlife habitats was conducted in the planning area as a cohesive whole, not limited to 

ACEC areas.

Comment: The BLM is planning to allow 7,136 wells to be drilled under its preferred alternative, which 

could greatly exacerbate existing ozone problems. DEIS Appendix 10 at A10-2. And the recent Revised 

Draft SEIS for the Pinedale Anticline project predicts ozone levels will exceed the new NAAQS. Revised 

Draft EIS at 4-77 (showing ozone levels will reach 76.5 ppb). Furthermore, FLPMA requires BLM RMPs 

to "provide for compliance" with the Clean Air Act and other pollution control law. 43 U.S.C. § 

1712(c)(8). Given that the Pinedale Anticline SEIS is predicting violations of the ozone NAAQS and very 

high ozone levels are already being monitored, the BLM clearly must put in place mitigation as a 

requirement of this RMP if it is to meet its obligation to "provide for compliance" with the Clean Air Act. 

Response: Air quality monitoring data were updated in the final EIS as they were available.

BLM will continue to comply with all air quality laws, rules, and regulations. While ambient air quality 

conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, monitored data at the present time 

is inconclusive.

It is important to note that current concentrations of criteria pollutants are in compliance with the 

WAAQS and NAAQS (with the exception of ozone). Therefore an increase in the concentration of a 

particular pollutant is not necessarily a significant impact. Provided that concentrations remain in 

compliance with the standards, significant impacts would not occur.

BLM does not have the authority to prohibit development of valid existing oil and gas leases. Regulation 

of air emissions resulting from drilling is the responsibility of WDEQ.

Comment: On February 14, 2008, the EPA issued its letter assessing and rating the Revised Draft SEIS 

for the Pinedale Anticline Project. Exhibit 9. In that letter the EPA gave the Revised Draft SEIS its lowest 

possible rating, an EU-3, environmentally unsatisfactory with inadequate information. The EPA raised 

A27-712 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

three principal concerns: ozone issues, impacts on visibility in Class I areas, and groundwater impacts, 

particularly from benzene contamination. As the BLM revises the Pinedale RMP, we believe these issues 

are just as relevant to the RMP as to the Pinedale Anticline EIS. Widespread benzene contamination of 

water wells is a concern of Field Office-wide significance. It is our understanding contamination of wells 

is also being detected in the Jonah field. Impacts on Class I areas, particularly the Bridger Wilderness 

Area, are an issue of national interest, given the command of the Clean Air Act that the national goal is 

"the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility" in Class I § 

areas. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(I). And the ozone levels being seen in the Pinedale area of great public 

concern, and a threat to public health. Consequently the RMP should fully address these issues. 

Response: BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts on air quality 

from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern.

Although ambient air quality conditions and air quality-related values may appear to be worsening, 

monitored data at the present time is inconclusive. 

The WDEQ has the regulatory responsibility and authority to enforce air quality regulations in Wyoming. 

BLM has the land management authority and responsibility to adopt desired future conditions, such as 

significance criteria and levels of concern. BLM will continue to support air quality monitoring and 

analysis. BLM will continue to require proponents to demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality 

from the proposed project are below applicable significance criteria or levels of concern.

Comment: Largely due to the high ozone levels being seen, but for other reasons as well (such as water 

well contamination), citizens of Pinedale have demanded that the BLM conduct a comprehensive Health 

Impacts Assessment (HIA) of impacts resulting from the massive oil and gas development occurring in 

the area. Exhibit 11. While this call for an HIA was specifically directed at the Pinedale Anticline SEIS, 

we believe the concerns expressed have Field Office-wide significance. Consequently, we ask the BLM to 

take note of this request and ensure that it is complied with, either as part of the Pinedale Anticline SEIS 

or as part of the Pinedale RMP revision. As noted in the letter, it is critical that the I-IIA be 

comprehensive, and the protocol developed by the World Health Organization and the Centers for 

Disease Control should be adhered to. These concerns have also been expressed in a separate letter sent to 

the BLM and other agencies that was signed by many groups that are party to these comments. Exhibit 

12. 

Response: This comment is not relevant to the ACEC NOA. The HIA is being completed as part of the 

Pinedale Anticline SEIS.

Comment: On January 10, 2001 Executive Order (EO) 13186 was issued. Exhibit 13. It directs agencies 

to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and other 30 relevant law. Among other things 

it directs agencies to enter into a MOU with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that will ensure the agency 

will "restore and enhance the habitat of migratory birds ... ," "prevent or abate pollution or detrimental 

alteration of the environment for the benefit of migratory birds," and "design migratory bird habitat and 

population conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency plans and planning processes ...." 

BLM has apparently never entered into the required MOU, so on December 18, 2007 it issued an 

Instruction Memorandum (1M 2008·050) as a stopgap measure. Exhibit 14. This 1M provides guidance 

on compliance with the Executive Order. We request that the BLM ensure full compliance with both the 

EO and the 1M in the Pinedale RMP. At a minimum, the RMP EIS should address, and provide 

appropriate mitigation for the Bird Species or Conservation Concern and the Game Birds Below Desired 

Condition presented in the attachments to the 1M, if those species occur in the Pinedale Field Office 

(many do). We specifically request that the BLM adopt stipulations that protect these migratory birds that 

can be attached to oil and gas leases or other land use authorizations. We do not think that protection of 

Pinedale RMP A27-713 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

these species, or compliance with the EO, can be assured with just general provisions made in the RMP 

EIS; specific, enforceable requirements must be made part of all oil and gas leases and other land use 

authorizations, and the RMP should so provide. Currently the DEIS provides very little consideration of 

migratory bird species subject to the EO. The very general discussions that appear on OEIS pages 4-181 

to 192 and 4-208 to -211 are essentially silent as to virtually all migratory bird species. And as to the 

provisions of the preferred alternative that apply to wildlife, it is not clear that ~ most of these would 

apply to the migratory species subject to the EO. See DEIS at 2-143 to -153. At a minimum these 

provisions should be made specifically applicable to all :E; migratory species covered by the EO, and 

specific measures that help ensure the ~ provisions of the EO are complied with and implemented should 

be added to these provisions. 

Response: BLM intends to protect raptors to the fullest extent of our management authority in all four of 

the designated areas to prevent a violation under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The final EIS has been 

changed to apply performance-based management to the project development scale, where it is most 

appropriate, not the land use planning scale.

Appendix 18 of the draft EIS is based on recommendations from the USFWS, which administers the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition, page 9 of Appendix 18 states that power lines should be 

constructed to the standards identified by APLIC 1996.

Comment: The DEIS did not provide a quantitative analysis of air quality impacts, rather it only 

provided a qualitative analysis. DEIS at 4-5 to -8, 4-237 to -240, Appendix 19. In essence all that was 

presented was an inventory of likely future increases in emissions of criteria air pollutants. It is 

anticipated that emissions of air pollutants will increase from approximately 38,000 to 120,000. DEIS at 

1'-24 (Figure 4_1).8 • The BLM provided 110 units with these data presented in Figure 4·1, just raw 

numbers. We assume these data are in pounds per year, but they could be Ions per year. This "analysis" is 

insufficient to meet the requirements of NEPA. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must consider 

the environmental impacts of a federal action, it must consider the effects of the action. A consideration 

of the environmental effects of an action requires a consideration of both the direct and indirect effects. 40 

C.F.R. § 1508.8. Here the BLM has provided no such analysis, it has presented an inventory of the likely 

increase in pollutants but it has made no attempt to consider the direct effects that "are caused by the 

action and occur at the same time and place" nor has it made any attempt to consider indirect effects "that 

are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance." Id. All that BLM does is 

state that the amount of pollutants will increase from approximately 38,000 to 120,000. DEIS al F-24 

(Figure 4- I)' 9 Again, the BLM did not present any units with these data, so it is not possible to know 

whether this is an increase from 40,000 pounds of pollutants per year to 120,000 pounds, or if these data 

arc perhaps in tons per year. This is not the "detailed statement" on the "environmental impact of the 

proposed action" or the "adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be 

implemented" that NEPA requires. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332(2)(C)(i)-(ii). It is nothing more than an inventory 

of emissions with no concrete conclusions whatsoever regarding potential impacts of the emissions. This 

is a violation of NEPA. The BLM is required to "consider every significant aspect of the environmental 

impact of a proposed action.", Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Inc., 98 S.Ct. I 197, 1216 (1978). As recognized by the courts, An agency may not avoid an 

obligation to analyze in an EIS environmental consequences that foreseeably arise from an RMP merely 

by saying that the consequences are unclear or will be analyzed later when an [environmental assessment] 

is prepared for a site-specific program proposed pursuant to the RMP. "[T]he purpose of an [EIS] is to 

evaluate the possibilities in light of current and contemplated plans and to produce an informed estimate 

of the environmental consequences .... Drafting an [EIS] necessarily involves some degree of 

forecasting." Kern v. United States Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062, 1072 (9'" Cir. 2002) 

(underlines added). 

A27-714 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Response: NEPA requires the use of best available information. Existing information was used and this 

was disclosed in the analysis. Having this information may more adequately inform the reader but is 

unlikely to result in a change to or addition of an alternative.

Tables A19-6, A19-7, and A19-8 in the draft EIS Appendix 19 quantify potential emissions from BLM 

activities in the Pinedale RMP planning area for each alternative and year. Potential impacts are described 

by including as an example the cumulative impacts from the Jonah and Pinedale SEIS analyses. 

The range of alternatives was based on surface disturbance and magnitude of oil and gas development 

rather than on emissions or air quality. Because infill of the Jonah and Anticline fields would continue 

under all alternatives, differences in emissions between the alternatives are small. The emission factors 

used do indeed apply to the Pinedale area and altitude.

The RMP does not analyze any specific proposal or authorize any drilling activity. The RMP is an 

allocation document that establishes allowable uses over the Pinedale planning area. BLM can estimate 

the approximate impacts of a predicted number of wells, which the impact analysis in Chapter 4 does. 

NEPA does not require a quantitative study. The Air Resources Team (air staff from WDEQ, EPA, 

USFS, NPS, and BLM) worked collaboratively with BLM on the analysis methodology. 

Oil and Gas 

Comment: PAGE: 3-136, SECTION: 3.18.2, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise for accuracy New 

Fork Potholes. This unique subsection of the Wind River Front which consists of private land and 

scattered parcels of public land contains nearly 100 glacial potholes, which are depressions formed by 

huge blocks of ice stranded in a field of glacial outwash materials. Upon melting, these blocks left 

depressions in the landscape, which today remain in the form of small lakes. Abundant waterfowl make 

use of the ecosystem for nesting and brood rearing and as a stopover point in their migrations. 

Reintroduction efforts for the trumpeter swan have been attempted in the past. Riparian vegetation 

surrounds the potholes, providing habitat for various wildlife, including neotropical birds, elk, deer, and 

moose. A portion of the region serves as crucial elk winter range. The area is accessible for semiprimitive 

motorized recreational activities. EXPLANATION: Most of the area is already under lease; cannot show 

harm to resources, since many if not most are located on private land as well.

Response: The text presents an accurate description of the area. The presence of an oil and gas lease does 

not negate the values of the area. BLM has no authority to protect resources on private lands, but could 

protect public resources in this area where private lands are being rapidly subdivided and developed.

Comment: We support mandatory use of new science-based technologies for restoration, clustering 

industrialization, directional drilling and other ways to minimize impacts in developed fields. Those alone 

will not sustain wildlife, landscapes, air and water or our way of life. We need and demand more and 

better planning before projects are developed to weigh and balance other important resource values 

against the payoff from more drilling. Some measure of development prerogative must be foregone by a 

slower pace, phased development and permanent withdrawal of important areas from development if 

BLM is to truly manage for multiple uses in the Pinedale RMP area. The use of more ACEC descriptions 

would be appropriate to protect areas of known importance. 

Response: These technologies are included as best management practices in the Preferred Alternative and 

would be implemented whenever practical. Making areas unavailable for leasing and development is 

considered in the EIS, including in the Preferred Alternative. Pace and phasing of development is outside 

the scope of the RMP, but would be somewhat affected by restrictions placed on surface-disturbing and 

other activities. 

Pinedale RMP A27-715 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

Comment: Page 2-156 Wind River Front Management Area Objective (7)(d): “The Management Area 

would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing.” Comment - The creation of this SMA establishes a “buffer” 

around other special designations on the Wind River Front and ignored valid existing lease rights. The 

protection area is unjustified and excessive. We recommend removing the “buffer” and keeping the area 

available for oil and gas leasing with controlled surface use (CSU) stipulations to “maintain and improve 

wildlife habitats; big game migration corridors and bottlenecks; scenic quality; and recreation values and 

uses...” 

Response: Creation of the Wind River Front Management Area cannot negate existing lease rights. See 

page 2-8 in the draft EIS, actions common to all alternatives: “Existing oil and gas or other mineral lease 

rights would be honored”. Areas unavailable for leasing are intended to provide undeveloped wildlife 

habitats in the planning area during the intensive development of the Pinedale Anticline, Jonah, and other 

existing fields or new discoveries on existing or new leases.

Comment: PAGE: 2-228 SECTION: Wind R Front RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: 

Comment Ch. 2-#67, 207. Much of area private land or private minerals BLM cannot deny access to 

private mineral estate. Comment Ch. 2-#53. Question change from 10 miles to 6 miles, since local 

governments understand that is based on land already under lease rather than objective determination of a 

distance that does not interfere with listening array. Moreover arrays have been in place for several 

decades and only now require a 6 mile buffer. VRM Class II will limit or preclude logging

Response: See page 1-9 of the draft EIS: “The planning decisions in the RMP will apply only to BLMadministered public land surface and mineral estate in the planning area, including BLM-administered 

minerals that underlie nonfederal lands (split estate)”. VRM Class II objectives could impact logging 

operations but would not preclude them. This discussion has been added to the impact analysis for 

Alternatives 3 and 4. 

Geology 

Comment: A major point is that the basic surficial geology is glacial till over bedrock formations such as 

the Lance and Green river formations. The porosity of glacial till allows for subsurface vertical and 

horizontal movement. Dr. Dennis Dahms of Iowa State University has published numerous articles on the 

surficial geology of the Pinedale and Wind River Area. He sent me his opinion via email (see attachment 

3) regarding the potential for contamination in water courses associated with the potholes area proposed 

for ACEC status. The same general conditions exist throughout most of the surficial geology in the PRM 

area and the same types of affect on water quality would occur on a broader scale than just the potholes 

region. The topology from the Wind Rivers extends west beyond Highway 191 with similar terrain to the 

potholes area, which is recognized as deserving special management status.

Response: Under Alternatives 3 and 4, area encompassed by the proposed New Fork Potholes ACEC 

would be unavailable for leasing or new leases would be unavailable for surface occupancy. There are 

some existing leases in this area where an operator/leaseholder has a valid and existing right to develop 

and produce the leases. Development of wells in this area would be subject to project-level and/or sitespecific NEPA analysis and would be subject to the requirements listed in Appendix 2 (page A2-2) of the 

draft EIS. Also due to the proliferation of surface water areas, BLM would very likely require the use of a 

closed-loop system (no reserve pits) and would potentially require drilling cuttings be removed to an 

approved offsite disposal facility. Fresh water drilling would be required through all fresh water zones, 

and the surface casing would be cemented through all fresh water zones back to the ground surface. The 

BLM Pinedale Field Office requires that operators use closed-loop drilling systems rather than reserve 

pits when ground water occurs within 50 feet of the ground surface.

A27-716 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Comment: PAGE:2-156, SECTION: Ross Butte Area, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE 

Objective 6 Maintain sensitive plant communities and control soil erosion in the Ross Butte area. Actions 

a. The Ross Butte Management Area (35,670 acres) would be designated (Map 2-33; Table 2-30, p. 2-

169). EXPLANATION: Boundaries need to be focused on actual plant community areas. Soil erosion is 

controlled throughout the planning area.

Response: Soils in the Ross Butte area are particularly fragile, and sensitive plant communities occur 

throughout the area. Special management of these resources is reasonable.

Comment: PAGE: 3-102, SECTION: 3.12.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise or drop Ross Butte 

EXPLANATION: Ross Butte discussion is inaccurate. The soil types do not support the plants listed. 

Most of the area is private land and yet RMP omits this significant fact. Rationale does not justify 

description of this area as significant. Maps do not disclose Alternative 1. Finally the cited report is not 

part of the documents provided to the public or the cooperators.

Response: The Ross Butte area proposed for management consists of BLM-administered public lands. 

Because the plants have been documented in the area, it can be deduced that the soils support them.

Comment: PAGE: 2-225 SECTION: Ross Butte RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: 

Comment Ch. 2-#205 Plants and soils are not unique to area Along river, most of land is privately owned 

Commercial stands of timber which would be at risk since management will interfere with need to address 

diseases and pests Boundaries much larger than buttes to be protected Unclear objective since BLM must 

allow maintenance of existing communication towers and related roads

Response: The Ross Butte Management Area does not include any private lands or areas immediately 

adjacent to the Green River. There is no commercial timber in the Ross Butte Management Area. The 

boundary of the Ross Butte Management Area is drawn to optimize management of all the sensitive 

resources of the area, including cultural and archeological resources and landscapes, sensitive plant 

communities, paleontological resources, open space, dispersed recreation, and unstable soils. The 

objective does not preclude maintenance of existing sites. 

Wildlife, Special Status Species (SSS) 

Comment: Alternative 3 would designate a White-Tailed Prairie Dog ACEC while Alternative 4 would 

not provide any special management oriented toward this BLM sensitive species. The protections 

afforded by Alternative 3 should be adopted by the BLM regardless of what Alternative is ultimately 

selected as the RMP. The BLM recognizes that this ACEC meets the relevance and importance criteria 

for ACEC designation. A4-3. As will be discussed below, having made this determination, the BLM is 

required to designate the White-Tailed Prairie Dog ACEC. It should be pointed out that the areas where 

white-tailed prairie dog habitat exists extend considerably to the west and southwest of areas currently 

known to have white-tailed prairie dog towns. Compare Map 2-26 with Map 3-21. Thus, it is likely that 

significant white-tailed prairie dog colonies will be found in these areas. One potential significance of this 

is that this ACEC does not necessarily create potential conflicts with the oil and gas development 

occurring in the Pinedale Anticline field; or at least there is not necessarily complete overlap between any 

efforts to protect prairie dogs through this ACEC designation and oil and gas development. Moreover, as 

noted above, even with the designation of this ACEC (and other protected areas), Alternative 3 would 

nevertheless lead to the production of over 87 percent as much natural gas as Alternative 4, so obviously 

the designation of this ACEC would not lead to significant impacts on oil and gas production. Potential 

impacts on oil and gas development are not a reason to forgo protection of white-tailed prairie dog habitat 

through an ACEC. Furthermore, given that substantial white-tailed prairie dog habitat is found well west 

of the Pinedale Anticline field, it is apparent this ACEC could be formed in areas that have not been as 

heavily leased as many areas (Map 1-3), in areas where there is not substantial current oil and gas field 

Pinedale RMP A27-717 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

development (Map 3-5), and in areas with low to moderate oil and gas development potential (Map 4-1). 

In short, this ACEC could be formed without necessarily creating a great deal of conflict with oil and gas 

development. 

It must also be reiterated again that the white-tailed prairie dog is a BLM sensitive species. For this reason 

the BLM must ensure that it complies with provisions in the BLM Special Status Species Management 

Manual 6840. Pursuant to the Special Status Species Manual, BLM must afford sensitive species the same 

protections afforded candidate species, at a minimum. Candidate species must be provided management 

strategies necessary to meet specific habitat and population management objectives and the BLM must 

ensure all management actions are consistent with those objectives. BLM Manual § 6840.06.C.2.b-c. 

Designating the White-Tailed Prairie Dog ACEC would help ensure these obligations are met, while a 

complete failure to protect white-tailed prairie dog habitat, as proposed in Alternative 4, clearly does not 

meet these obligations.

Response: Protections for white-tailed prairie dog habitats are found in the Wildlife section of Alternative 

4 (pages 2-149 and 2-150 of the draft EIS).

Comment: The location of the White-Tailed Prairie Dog potential ACECs under Alternative 3, as 

indicated on Map 2-26, is not consistent with Map 3-21 which shows white-tailed prairie dog towns. For 

example, Alternative 3 would create ACEC in Township 28 North, Range 112 West when the nearest 

mapped white-tailed prairie dog town is almost three townships to the northeast. Similarly, Alternative 3 

would create ACECs in the following townships that do not appear to contain white-tailed prairie dog 

colonies: Township 31 North, Range 111 West; Township 30 North, Range 111 West; Township 29 

North, Range 111 West; Township 28 North, Range 111 West.

Response: The townships listed for the White-Tailed Prairie Dog ACEC include those where prairie dog 

habitats are likely to exist, since surveys have not been conducted over the entire planning area. These 

townships are likely to contain prairie dog towns that would be discovered when the areas are surveyed.

Comment: Special management areas need to include areas that protect the future of populations of fish 

and wildlife that are being threatened now. TU supports the ACEC designations and expansions, 

particularly the Beaver Creek Expansion and the Rock Creek Expansion. Protecting the Colorado River 

Cutthroat trout populations and associated habitats serves to assist in keeping them off any endangered 

species listing. Colorado River Cutthroat trout (CRCT) are highly susceptible to sedimentation on their 

spawning grounds. With the extraordinary increase in the number of gas wells called for by BLM, it can 

be expected that the associated sedimentation, erosion, water and air quality impacts will directly and 

indirectly impact CRCT habitat. Protecting these relatively small proposed ACEC acreages helps ensure 

survival of these core conservation populations.

Response: ACEC status of itself is just a label and would not provide any protection to fish habitats. 

Meaningful protection would have to be implemented in conjunction with the ACEC status to achieve 

desired results. This protection can be implemented without creating additional ACECs. Management of 

wildlife habitats was conducted in the planning area as a cohesive whole, not limited to ACEC areas. The 

alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, include objectives and actions to maintain suitable 

CRCT habitats.

Comment: PAGE:2-153,SECTION: Trapper’s Pt. ACEC RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [Trapper’s 

Point ACEC Management Goal Preserve the viability of the big game migration bottleneck, cultural and 

historic resources, and important livestock trailing use.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: Migration is 

primarily a private land as shown by comparing land status map with ACEC map. BLM cannot exercise 

jurisdiction over private land. Comment #153. There is no bottleneck, because game animals rely 

A27-718 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

primarily on private land. Livestock trailing is protected by stock driveways and an ACEC is not 

necessary nor appropriate.

Response: The big game animals in question migrate through BLM-administered public lands in the 

Trapper’s Point area and have done so for at least 6,000 years—prior to the establishment of private lands 

in the area. Mule deer and pronghorn, in particular, rely on sagebrush habitats. Data from collared and 

studied deer and pronghorn have identified several migration bottlenecks in the planning area, of which 

Trapper’s Point is the most famous. The migration corridor goes through private, BLM, and USFS lands 

if one traced the entire route from beginning to end. The issue on BLM lands is surface-disturbing and 

disrupting activities by humans associated with mineral development. By removing this portion of the 

known migration corridor from future disturbance, BLM is preventing undue and unnecessary 

degradation of a known wildlife use. 

Comment: PAGE:2-155, SECTION: Trapper’s point ACEC, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE 

[Objective 3 Ensure that no obstruction to the big game migration bottleneck within the Trapper’s Point 

ACEC would occur; facilitate livestock trailing and gathering; and provide interpretation of cultural sites 

for the public.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: There is no bottleneck. Big game use adjacent private land 

for the most part. BLM cannot show that existing land actions will destroy livestock trailing and gathering 

or cultural sites or the migration route, which is on private land.

Response: Scientific study has identified the migration bottleneck at Trapper’s Point and the 

archeological record has confirmed the presence of the migration route for at least the last 6,000 years. 

The migration bottleneck is located on BLM-administered public lands. Animals are not migrating 

through adjacent private lands that have been developed for housing.

Comment: PAGE:2-155 TO 156, SECTION: Miller Mtn., RECOMMENDED CHANGE: DELETE 

[Objective 5 Maintain open space, natural landscapes, and crucial big game winter ranges in the Miller 

Mountain area.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: The management objectives bear little relation to the 

rationale for Miller Mountain.

Response: Limitations on forest management activities, oil and gas leasing, OHV use, road development, 

surface disturbance on steep slopes, and road construction in talus areas are directly related to the 

objectives of maintaining open space, natural landscapes, and crucial big game winter ranges. These 

limitations all specifically reduce habitat disturbance and fragmentation, preserving open space and 

natural landscapes.

Comment: PAGE: 4-217 SECTION: 4.18.3 Trapper's Pt. RECOMMENDED CHANGE: 

EXPLANTION: See Comment Ch.2-# 202. Not a bottleneck; area already has fences and homes and has 

been major migration point. No evidence that seasonal stipulation is insufficient.

Response: The Trapper’s Point migration bottleneck is well documented by both current wildlife studies 

and the archeological record. Seasonal stipulations do not protect habitats, they protect individuals. In this 

case, because the habitat is extremely limited, it needs protection in excess of seasonal restrictions. 

Comment: PAGE: 4-223 SECTION: Miller Mtn. RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: 

Boundaries do not match winter range shown on maps although said to be the need for area Mix of 

private and state land. Cannot impose VRM Class II given existing leases and other land uses

Response: The boundaries of the Miller Mountain Management Area are drawn to optimize open space, 

natural landscapes, and big game winter ranges. The boundaries also consider the oil and gas leasing 

Pinedale RMP A27-719 
Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) Final EIS 

status of the area. BLM management decisions do not apply to private lands. VRM Class II objectives 

would not prohibit other uses. 

Compliance with Laws, NEPA, Policy 

Comment: The BLM recognized in the table presented in Appendix 4 in the RMP DEIS that many of the 

ACECs considered met BLM’s relevance and importance criteria. Having recognized this, the BLM was 

required to designate these areas meeting the relevance and importance criteria as ACECs in order to meet 

its obligation to give “priority” to designating ACECs. The BLM seems to have declined to designate 

many of these areas as ACECs because of a belief that alternative management is sufficient for these 

highly relevant and important fragile resources. This is plainly wrong; one does not give priority to the 

creation of something (an ACEC) by not creating it or by creating something else. One gives priority to 

designating ACECs by doing just that when the area meets the relevance and importance criteria, as many 

of these areas do. Why does BLM feel it need not designate an area an ACEC when the area meets 

BLM’s own relevance and importance criteria; how is that giving “priority” to creation and protection of 

ACECs, as required by the FLPMA? 

The BLM seems to believe that the language in 43 U.S.C. § 1702(a) about special management being 

“required” can absolve it from designating ACECs (i.e., giving priority to them) when it can fmd some 

other way to protect these lands. But such a view is plainly wrong. BLM can always fmd other ways to 

protect areas besides designating them as ACECs through its general multiple use authority, but such an 

effort thwarts the express command of Congress to give “priority” to designating ACECs not other 

special management areas, many of which are often purely of BLM’s own creation with no defined or 

certain management requirements or standards. Furthermore, any time an area is “developed” or is “used” 

or where “no development” must be ensured, ACEC designation is “required” because these 

circumstances create a need for “special management attention” so as to protect any recognized important 

resource values. 43 U.S.C. § 1702(a). That is, ACECs are not to be designated only when required for 

protection of the resources, but rather the requirement to designate attaches when development or use will 

occur in an area that meets the relevance and significance criteria. The requirement also attaches if use 

will occur in an area that meets the criteria when no development must be ensured to protect the 

resources. BLM recognizes that nearly all of the ACECs at issue here are likely to be “developed” or 

“used” to some degree. Consequently these lands require special management attention to protect and 

prevent irreparable damage to the resources in these areas that BLM recognizes are important and 

relevant. Thus, they must be designated ACECs as commanded by the FLPMA.

Response: For areas that meet the ACEC relevance and importance criteria, BLM is required to analyze 

designation of the ACEC in at least one alternative of the EIS. BLM is not required to establish as an 

ACEC every area that meets the relevance and importance criteria. Protections for all areas that meet the 

relevance and importance criteria, and for some areas that meet only one criterion, are included in the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Comment: Finally, the BLM did not comply with the procedural requirements imposed in the BLM’s 

planning regulations regarding the designation of ACECs. The BLM Planning regulations require the 

State Director, upon approval of a draft RMP, to publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying any 

potential ACECs and describing the resource use limitations that would be imposed if the ACECs were 

adopted. See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.7-2(b) (2006). Although the BLM’s Federal Register Notice of February 

16, 2007, described two potential ACECs, it does not identify the numerous other ACECs described in 

Alternative 3. See 72 Fed. Reg. 7670 (February 16, 2007). Because the BLM failed to comply with this 

requirement during the revision of the Casper RMP, the BLM was recently required to re-open comments 

with respect to ACECs when it issued the Final RMP/EIS for the Casper RMP. See 72 Fed. Reg. 31848 

(June 8, 2007). Such procedures may confuse and taint the public participation process associated with 

the development of a RMP.

A27-720 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Response: BLM has issued an additional NOA identifying the potential ACECs and has gathered public 

comment. Responses to substantive comments received, and any document changes necessary, are 

provided in this final EIS. 

Comment: PAGE: 2-153, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: The following SMAs would be reconsidered 

for [retention or establishment within 5 years retained, modified, or established.] (strikeout) 

EXPLANATION: Appendix 4 and the Pinedale ACEC report are legally deficient because they never 

establish the need to protect the specific resources. FLPMA defines ACEC as follows: (a) The term “areas 

of critical environmental concern” means areas within the public lands where special management 

attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to 

protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife 

resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. Report 

omits any discussion of need, which by law is defined in terms of protect and prevent irreparable damage. 

The report only considered relevance and importance and assumed need. The BLM Planning Handbook 

recognizes this fundamental element, App. C, p. 18 where it states: “[ACEC] must require special 

management to: (1) Protect the area and prevent irreparable damage to resources or natural systems. (2) 

Protect life and promote safety in areas where natural hazards exist.”

Response: Reconsideration of the SD/MA designation would require an RMP revision. BLM would 

monitor these areas to determine if management goals are being attained. If circumstances arise where the 

SD/MA designation is considered no longer relevant, BLM would at that time reconsider the SD/MA 

designation and management goals.

Comment: PAGE:2-155, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: [h. No water diversion ROWs would be 

permitted unless they benefit CRCT.] (strikeout) EXPLANATION: Even though Beaver Creek ACEC 

fails to meet the legal criteria, this action under the Beaver Creek ACEC is so clearly illegal that it merits 

its own comment. Denying rights-of-way to divert water is an unlawful effort to regulate state water 

rights and inversely condemns those water rights. It needs to deleted. 

Response: Requests for ROWs of any kind can be denied based on anticipated impacts to resources at 

risk under the regulations. One can check past Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) decisions on this 

issue from the Kemmerer Field Office (IBLA 93-154, Sept. 13, 1995) as an example.

Comment: PAGE: 4-213 SECTION: 4.18.3 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE In concert with 

BLM guidelines, the impact analysis considers management actions that “defend or guard against damage 

or loss” to the relevant and important values. [The management actions associated with the alternatives 

could either degrade or protect the relevant and important values within each ACEC and either cause or 

prevent irreparable damage to such values. Degradation of relevant and important values would primarily 

occur from surface disturbing activities, such as those associated with construction of ROWs (e.g., 

pipelines, transmission lines, communication lines), construction of oil and gas facilities (e.g., well pads, 

reserve pits, roads), and livestock range improvements. Other activities, such as vegetation manipulation 

and OHV recreation use, could affect relevant and important values by removing soil and vegetation and 

thereby creating intrusions on the landscape.](STRIKEOUT) EXPLANATION: Text correctly states that 

policy requires identification of threat or loss. Text is incorrect that the analysis identified specific threats. 

BLM Planning Handbook imposes a much higher standard. See also Comment # 195. Thus ACEC 

analysis and recommendations were never correctly done and must be revised entirely.

Response: The analysis identifies specific actions that would impact the proposed SMAs.

Pinedale RMP A27-721 
Appendix 27—Cumulative Impacts Final EIS 

Cumulative Impacts 

General Comment Responses: 

Comments: 

• One more thing . . . Yellowstone is the site of one of the world’s largest and potentially most 

explosive calderas. Can you say “Volcanic eruption of cataclysmic proportions”?? As in 

worldwide nuclear winter? DUH. Don’t do it. It’s a fools’ errand. 

• I truly hope you also have seriously studied the impact of any symbiotic relationship between the 

large gas fields on the lava bed beneath the Yellowstone mesa. It would be a hard way to find out 

that an overreaction to a “good find” resulted in an unintended consequence of a major eruption 

of an overdue lava flow in the greater Yellowstone National preserve... you’d better check your 

facts before you grab for the gold. You’re wagging our health, our lives and our quality of live for 

quick cash in someone else’s pocket.

Response: There is no current seismic evidence to suggest the magma chamber extends under the 

planning area.

Unique Comments: 

Comments on Document/Suggested Changes/Comments with Multiple 

Issues 

Comment: Recent NEPA challenges and court decision have highlighted the critical aspect of cumulative 

effects analysis. The 9th Circuit (Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins 456 F. 3d 955; 9th Cir., Aug. 1, 

2006) agreed with plaintiffs that cumulative impacts were inadequately considered because the 

cumulative impact analysis consisted of only vague and conclusory statements with no supporting data. 

Plaintiffs argued that the EISs merely listed other mines in the area without discussing the impacts from 

each one and failed altogether to address specific impacts related to nearby mines. Is this case instructive 

and might the same arguments be considered when thinking about cumulative socioeconomic impacts in 

this RMP?

Response: The cumulative impact analysis has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: Table 4-2 Steps in Cumulative Effects Analysis Steps in cumulative effects analysis to be 

addressed in each component of environmental impact assessment. 

1. Identify the significant cumulative effects issues associated with the proposed action and define 

the assessment goals. 

2. Establish the geographic scope for the analysis. 

3. Establish the time frame for the analysis. 

4. Identify other actions affecting the resources, ecosystems, and human communities of concern. 

5. Characterize the resources, ecosystems, and human communities identified in scoping in terms of 

their response to change and capacity to withstand stresses. 

6. Characterize the stresses affecting these resources, ecosystems, and human communities and their 

relation to regulatory thresholds. 

A27-722 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cumulative Impacts 

7. Define a baseline condition for the resources, ecosystems, and human communities. 

8. Identify the important cause-and-effect relationships between human activities and resources, 

ecosystems, and human communities. 

9. Determine the magnitude and significance of cumulative effects. 

10. Modify or add alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant cumulative effects. 

11. Monitor the cumulative effects of the selected alternative and adapt management.

Response: The cumulative impact analysis has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: The current NEPA documents are insufficient in their quantification of cumulative impacts. 

This is vividly illustrated in the air quality impacts discussion. The impacts discussion should include 

modeling that assessed the combined effects of existing (Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline) 

development and any new development that could occur in the Pinedale Planning Area. Since no clear 

assumptions have been made about what level of development could occur within the Pinedale Planning 

Area the NEPA document fails to adequately assess the cumulative impacts of the RMP.

Response: The RMP will not authorize any activities on the ground. Thus, no air quality modeling was 

conducted. Air quality modeling is typically completed at the site-specific project development EIS stage, 

such as for the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline EISs. 

Comment: MISSION STATEMENT “It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the 

health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations”. The above BLM Mission Statement is not being adhered to since the current development is 

causing declines in Deer populations, air quality, and the quality of life for those of us who enjoy the 

outdoors. What will future generations have? The pace of environmental destruction to this once pristine 

area needs more sensitive management and stewardship, not increased unmitigated development. I would 

like to see areas of concentrated development with reseeding and a thorough clean up before other areas 

are explored. While I oppose winter drilling due to disruption of wintering wildlife and the haze and 

inversions that diesel fumes create, if it is unavoidable, then drilling rigs and service trucks should run on 

clean burning natural gas instead of diesel. Careful attention to migration routes for deer and antelope 

should preclude development in those areas. I would also like to see more BLM and EPA inspectors hired 

to make sure that any environmental hazards are caught early before they can damage the aquifers, 

wildlife, or air quality. The efforts of Questar to use pipelines to remove condensate in order to decrease 

truck traffic should be commended and required by all operators. Stiff penalties for environmental spills 

or violation of agreed upon drilling practices should be instituted and enforced. Again, a much needed 

role for both BLM and EPA inspectors. As a member of the PAWG Water Task Group and as a Board 

Certified Emergency Physician that deals with Toxicology issues on a regular basis, I am also concerned 

that the BLM and gas industry do everything possible to prevent contamination to the area’s water supply. 

The fact that the operators are required to cement the well to a depth far below the upper aquifers is 

comforting. However, I am still uncertain that our current testing for TPH-GRO instead of the more 

expensive BTEX is a prudent practice. There were lengthy discussions in our meetings about the most 

appropriate testing and the consensus in the group was that TPH would be adequate. I was not entirely 

happy with this conclusion since my research on the issue led me to a Ministry for the Environment New 

Zealand web site that made the following comment regarding TPH testing: “TPH methods that do not use 

purge-and-trap or headspace analysis (eg, the New Zealand oil industry method) will not cover benzene or 

n-hexane, etc., because the extraction methods can involve loss of volatiles. The limitations of the 

analytical method should therefore be considered when interpreting the analytical results”. My biggest 

concern is to make sure that Benzene, a potent carcinogen linked to leukemia, does not contaminate the 

Pinedale RMP A27-723 
Appendix 27—Cumulative Impacts Final EIS 

drinking water of humans or livestock. The EPA in 40cfr141.32 have declared Benzene to pose a risk to 

humans at a level of only 0.005 parts per million. Ethyl benzene (at 0.7 ppm), Toluene (at 1 ppm), and 

Xylene (at 10 ppm) all pose a threat to Kidneys, Liver and the Nervous system of humans and animals. I 

would like to see at least a percentage of domestic wells tested for BTEX as the original BLM ROD so 

appropriately stated. Sincerely, Michael J. Kramer, MD, FACEP

Response: Concentrated development is being conducted in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline gas fields 

under site-specific NEPA analysis and decisions. Oil and gas leaseholders have rights BLM does not have 

the authority to disregard. It is generally not possible to delay indefinitely development of areas where 

existing leases are in place. The Preferred Alternative sets aside some areas where no new leasing would 

be available, providing for phased development in those areas. Seasonal restrictions protect individual 

animals, not wildlife habitats, because the activities would be allowed to occur in the next available 

season. When activity reaches the point that habitats are no longer viable or animals abandon the area, 

seasonal restrictions are no longer useful and other mitigations must be employed. BLM does not have the 

authority to prohibit development of existing, valid oil and gas leases. However, the Preferred Alternative 

has provisions making most known migration bottlenecks unavailable for leasing and provisions avoiding 

other types of disturbance not related to oil and gas production. Site-specific drilling and development 

requirements and BMPs must be developed and applied on a site-specific basis. Water quality is the 

purview of the WDEQ. It is through the WDEQ that a need for additional sampling may be addressed. 

The water quality monitoring going on now associated with the PAPA does not check for hydrocarbons 

with every sampling event. Such concerns are best addressed at the field development level instead of the 

RMP. 

Comment: My concern is based on the fact that despite the hundreds of pages of text in this draft, there 

are little actual number of pages in the text devoted to watershed, water quality and quantity, and implied 

impacts on all aspects of resource success. Serious impacts are mentioned but the probable long term 

impacts of each are not evaluated as to overall impact on the functioning of the resource area. For a 

cursory view of this problem see the following sections: Sec 1cites relevant water statues governing water 

quality page 1-17, Section 2.3.11on watershed and water quality management is on pg 2-11, Sec 4 

environmental consequences on watershed and water quality (surface and groundwater) pg 4-166 to 4-173 

all mention the high correlation of surface disturbance due to oil and gas activities and potential 

watershed health and water quality issues. 4.19.16Watershed and water quality (4-252) degradation of 

water quality can be a rapid process while recovery in resources is much slower. As stated in a previous 

section 4.19.14impact on vegetation under alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would reduce ability of vegetation 

resources to support other resource values. In addition increases in noxious weeds also reduce the land 

and water quality to support resources. While water quality would be monitored by the state of Wyoming, 

it still seems the resulting effect is degradation of water quality and quantity on all resources. 

4.20irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources (4-257) Surface disturbances would result in 

long-term or permanent alterations to soil, removal of vegetation cover, and fragmentation of wildlife 

habitat. Increased in sediment alkalinity and non-point source pollution that result from activities could 

result in degradation of water quality, and irretrievable loss of water utility, aquatic habitats, and aquaticdependent species. Even with reclamation efforts on some disturbed sides may never return to predisturbance conditions. The result would likely result in permanent reductions in wildlife populations and 

impairment of water quality and vegetation communities in some areas. 

4.21Unavoidable adverse impacts (4-258) include soil erosion and compaction, habitat degradation and 

fragmentation, and water quality impairments all of which affect vegetation and wildlife capacity of the 

landscape. These suppositions ought to be in large bold type for the public to see and addressed by 

relevant and smart professionals with evidence and supportable management plans as to how to avoid the 

impacts and still keep to the Mission Statement of BLM which “is to sustain the health, diversity and 

productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

A27-724 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cumulative Impacts 

Response: The interactions of soil, vegetation, and water result in frequent correlations between land 

health and water quality. In short, healthy land equals healthy water. Water is the purview of the State of 

Wyoming. BLM is neither presently equipped nor authorized to intensively monitor the water resource. 

Comment: Cumulative impacts are among the most difficult and complex assessment(s) required in a 

NEPA document, and have become a focus for court challenges (Smith 2005). We believe the DEIS is 

vulnerable for two reasons: (1) Social and Economic issues were not listed as a major “planning issue” (p. 

1-6), and (2) The trends and cycles of energy development that has occurred periodically within the 

planning area did not appear in the DEIS. The DEIS states (p.4-234) that “not all issues identified for 

direct or indirect impact assessment in this RMP Draft EIS are analyzed for cumulative effects.” This 

section goes on to qualify the lack of cumulative effect analysis incorrectly stating that, “cumulative 

effects are commonly examined at a more qualitative and less detailed level than are direct and indirect 

effects.” Based on NEPA requirements, and standard cost benefit analysis practice (see Boardman et al. 

1996), it is evident that the DEIS is inadequate in its economic analysis. Standard cost benefit analysis 

seeks to estimate positive and negative effects resulting from a proposed action, and in particular, the 

magnitude of effects. To accomplish this, effects must be identified and the relationship between effects 

must be disclosed (cumulative effects). This information can then be used to estimate the value of 

outcomes and mitigation techniques (Hahn et al. 1996). Furthermore, NEPA requires disclosure of the 

effects to the human environment including health and welfare, community concerns and safety.

Response: The planning issues are intended to identify areas where BLM should develop management 

actions to address or prevent impacts. BLM does not have the authority to address or mitigate social and 

economic impacts. Past energy and other developments are included in the description of the affected 

environment in Chapter 3. The results of past development cycles have led to the existing environment as 

described in that chapter. It is reasonable for impacts in an RMP to be examined at a broad level, and it 

does not directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The purpose of impact analysis is to assess the 

social and economic consequences of implementing the various alternatives identified in the planning 

process (H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). This is not benefit-cost analysis. In addition, an 

RMP is a management plan that looks at Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenarios. 

Mitigation is considered as impacts occur and when BLM has authority to require mitigation.

Mitigation 

Comment: I consider the EIS to be inadequate in its assessment of the increased drilling which will be 

permitted in the Pinedale area in the following categories: It basically ignores the effects of the massive 

development already underway and only speaks about potential new development without taking the 

whole scenario into consideration Mitigation proposals do not occur in the areas which are really being 

affected by drilling, road building, and increased traffic. 

Response: The impact analysis in Chapter 4 considers the existing level of development in addition to 

projected development that could occur under each alternative. Site-specific drilling and development 

requirements, mitigation, and BMPs must be developed and applied on a site-specific basis, as is the case 

with the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline gas field EISs and decisions.

Comment: Mitigation is required by law on site. Direct and indirect impacts already documented for 

wildlife, scenic, and recreational values, air quality and other impacts will require mitigation adjacent to 

development. There should be a process built into the RMP for a transparent approach to weighing and 

balancing resource values lost against onsite and offsite replacement. 

Response: BLM would comply with all applicable laws, including NEPA, which requires a public 

process to determine the impacts of proposed projects and mitigation of those impacts if possible. SitePinedale RMP A27-725 
Appendix 27—Cumulative Impacts Final EIS 

specific analysis and mitigation of development proposals would be conducted in site-specific NEPA 

analysis, such as the Jonah EIS.

Comment: Reclamation and mitigation efforts (4-254, 4-255) are posited to reduce impacts on wildlife 

habitat but I find no indication as to what sorts of efforts these will be, where they will occur, when they 

will occur and what the likelihood of success might be. Paragraph 2 on page 4-255 states the obvious that 

“degree of impact would depend on the timing of development activities and whether the amount of 

activity within each CIAA outpaces the successful reclamation and revegetation efforts in the disturbed 

areas.” It is my professional opinion that, reclamation absolutely cannot keep pace with development as 

currently planned because Baker (2006) reported that it will take 50-100 years for replacement of 

functional sagebrush communities such as abound in the Pinedale Resource Management Area. 

Sagebrush communities provide vegetation crucial for winter survival of big game animals and they must 

be restored if big game populations are to continue to exist in the management area. The RMP/DEIS 

should provide and analysis of impacts in light of a realistic, scientifically supported, assessment of the 

likelihood that reclamation (typically to functional sagebrush communities) can keep pace with posited 

impacts.

Response: It is not possible to design specific mitigation at the RMP level, because the RMP will not 

directly authorize any on-the-ground activities. The appropriateness of onsite and offsite mitigation, and 

the methods to be used, must be tied to a specific proposal where specific impacts can be predicted. 

Because reclamation cannot replace wildlife habitat at the pace impacts take place, the document shows 

that big game population impacts (reductions) would result. We can predict that the development of 7,000 

new wells will impact big game herds. We are unable to predict the magnitude of that impact.

Wildlife 

Comment: Measuring the acres of direct disturbance to wildlife is appropriate and is estimated for the oil 

and gas development of the alternatives (Draft RMP, p. A 10-3). However, little quantitative assessment 

is made of indirect and cumulative impacts. This important part of the NEPA process is challenging for 

wildlife because it varies by species and must be measured spatially across a landscape. Fortunately, GIS 

(geographic information system) technology makes this process much easier. Basic habitat fragmentation 

measures of roads and oil and gas infrastructure (e.g., road density or distance to road) can be made for a 

broad landscape, key wildlife habitat area, or management unit. These measures, when combined with the 

literature discussed in the last section, allow scientists to project likely impacts of general transportation 

networks, oil and gas development, ORV impacts or other infrastructure development. 

Examples of this application of GIS for energy development was provided to the Pinedale RMP planning 

team during this planning process in the form of a report Wildlife at a Crossroads: Energy Development 

in Western Wyoming (Thomson et al. 2005) in February of 2005 (advance copy in January) and in a 

presentation to the planning team in the Pinedale office in April of 2005. Results of this report 

demonstrated the substantial habitat fragmentation that already exists in the Pinedale RA and the impacts 

of development within specific wildlife habitats. These findings illustrate the impacts from intense 

development. Today’s level of oil and gas development is higher than when this report was produced. Yet 

the Draft RMP makes no mention of the use of this type of analysis to describe current conditions of the 

landscape and wildlife impacts.

Response: Unfortunately GIS cannot predict the discovery of underground resources or the future price 

of gas. It is not possible to quantify impacts from fragmentation or any other activity that is not 

specifically being authorized, because it is not possible to accurately predict the intensity or even the 

location of future activities. In the case of the current developed fields, impacts are quantified in the field 

development EISs (for example, the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline EISs). 

A27-726 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cumulative Impacts 

Comment: Results of Build-out Scenario and Wildlife Impact Analysis: The results of our habitat 

fragmentation analysis of the three build-out scenarios of 160, 40 and 10 acre well pad spacings are 

presented in Figures 2, 3 and 4. Appendix 10 lists the well spacing for the Pinedale Anticline field to be 

120 to 160 acres per pad, the Jonah Field to be 10 acres per pad and the greater Big Piney-LaBarge area, 

Castle Creek Field and the rest of the planning area to be 40 acre spacing per pad. Using this information 

along with the GIS habitat layers indicating which oil and gas fields or other areas the wildlife occur in 

we were able to assess indirect and cumulative wildlife impacts for several species.

Sagebrush obligate birds: The sagebrush habitat should be managed to continue to support a range of sage 

brush obligate bird species. Inglefinger (2001) found that for lands within 328 feet (100 meters) of a road 

or well pad the density of sagebrush obligate birds drops by 50 percent regardless of the amount of 

activity on the road. Results for the different well spacings suggest that 37% of any areas with a 160 acre 

well pad spacing will be within 328 feet of a road, 71% of any areas with a 40 acre well pad spacing will 

be within 328 feet of a road, and 98% of areas developed to, at 10 acre well pad spacing will be within 

328 feet of a road (Figure2). These results point to a continued decline in sagebrush obligate bird species 

in the Pinedale RA. They suggest that few sagebrush obligate birds will persist in the Jonah Field, the Big 

Piney-Labarg area, Castle Creek Field, and other areas that develop a 40 acre or lower well pad spacing. 

Even the Pinedale Anticline if developed to a 160 acre spacing could experience an 18% loss of 

sagebrush obligate bird species. These findings point to the importance of developing refugia with no 

surface development outside of the intensely developed fields. 

Greater Sage-Grouse: Greater Sage-Grouse populations continue to decline in the Pinedale RA (Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department 2007b). Courtship, nesting and brood rearing habitats occur across much of 

the RA including the major oil and gas fields. Braun (2006) recommends no new road construction and 

seasonal closures of existing roads within 3.1 miles (5km) of leks and no surface occupancy within 3.4 

miles (5.5km) of leks. Additionally the Colorado Department of Wildlife recommends substantial 

protection of landscapes within 4 miles of leks based on new field research in the southern edge of the 

Green River Basin. All of landscape at the three well spacings tested fall well within these three distance 

thresholds for lands deserving greater protection from oil and gas development (Figure 2). In fact, our 

report Wildlife at a Crossroads (Thomson et al. 2005) submitted in 2005 found that 98% of the BLM 

lands in the Pinedale RA fall within a mile of a road. 

Distance to Road or Well Pad for Three Well Pad Spacings. This graph was not picked up by the scanner 

but is availalble on the hard copy document (page 16.) Figure 2. Cumulative distribution of distance to 

road values for the three hypothetical well spacings. The number of well pads within a given radius of a 

lek is also used to evaluate indirect effects on sage-grouse based on Holloran (2005) finding that 5 to 15 

wells within a 2 mile radius caused relatively light effects. Leks with greater than 15 wells within a 2-mile 

radius were heavily affected. These numbers are exceeded in development areas now (Holloran 2005) and 

will be exceeded in substantially more of the landscape under the development suggested in Appendix 10 

(Draft RFD, p A10-1). 

In summary, because of the wide distribution of leks in areas of existing and projected oil and gas 

development under all the alternatives, substantial impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse are likely. This again 

argues strongly for establishing refugia (particularly for winter, breeding, nesting and rearing habitats) for 

sage-grouse in the areas that are not already developed. With large leased and undeveloped areas, BLM 

should designate in the RMP that these areas should be unavailable for new/re-leasing and should be 

prioritized for lease retirement via voluntary lease trades or buyouts using off site mitigation funds. 

Mule deer: Mule deer winter habitat and crucial winter habitat is particularly important in and around the 

Pinedale Anticline and greater Big Piney-LaBarge areas. Under the 160 acre spacing build-out scenario of 

roads and well pads (projected pad density for the Pinedale Anticline), 91% of the landscape is within 

Pinedale RMP A27-727 
Appendix 27—Cumulative Impacts Final EIS 

1542 feet (470 meters) of a well pad or road - the distance that mule deer are shown to alert to human 

activity and are less likely to use the habitat for normal life functions (Freddy et al. 1986, Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department 2004). Essentially one hundred percent of the landscape is within this distance of 

roads and pads under the 40 acre spacing projected for the greater Big Piney-LaBarge area (Figure 2). Our 

study Wildlife at a Crossroads (Thomson et al. 2005) found that 77% of mule deer crucial winter range 

was within 1542 feet of a road. Looking at the most conservative displacement from well pad distance of 

1.6 miles from Sawyer et al. (2006), we determined that all three of the build-out scenarios leave no 

portion of the landscape greater than 1.6 miles from a well pad (Figure 2). These results along with the 

field monitoring done by Sawyer et al. (2006) (discussed previously) clearly point to the reduction in 

habitat effectiveness and in some areas the elimination of habitat use by mule deer in developed oil and 

gas fields. Substantial patches of habitat are needed in and around the Pinedale Anticline and Big PineyLaBarge areas to protect winter and crucial winter habitat to sustain these mule deer herds. 

Pronghorn: The oil and gas fields overlapping most with pronghorn crucial winter range habitat are the 

Pinedale Anticline (120-160 acre projected spacing) and greater Big Piney-LaBarge areas (40 acre 

projected spacing). The ongoing Pronghorn study by Berger (2006) in the Pinedale RA identified a 

minimum patch threshold of 600 acres below which pronghorn significantly reduce their use of or 

abandon habitat. Our results for the 160 acre build-out scenario (projected pad density for the Pinedale 

Anticline) show that 88% of the landscape is in patches greater than 600 acres in size (Figure 3). Results 

for the 40 acre build-out scenario (projected pad density for the greater Big Piney-LaBarge) show that 

41% of the landscape is in patches greater than 600 acres in size (Figure 3). 

Additionally, we measured the area within 3,168 feet (1 kilometer) to a road - at this distance from a 

maintained road pronghorn are shown to exhibit avoidance (Ockenfels et al. 1994). Virtually all land in 

all three build-out scenarios falls within this distance of a road or well pad (Figure 2). Our 2005 study 

Wildlife at a Crossroads (Thomson et al. 2005) found that 92% of BLM lands and 94% of pronghorn 

crucial winter range in the RA fall within 3,168 feet of a road. Previous BLM planning documents (BLM 

1999) indicated that negative impacts occur for pronghorn at route densities above 1 mi/mi2. Ninetyseven percent of the landscape under the 160 acre well pad spacing build-out scenario and 100% of the 

landscape at the 40 and 10 acre build-out scenarios have road densities over this threshold (Figure 4). Our 

previous report (Thomson et al. 2005) showed that 80% of BLM lands and 80% of pronghorn winter 

range already have road densities greater than 1 mi/rni2. 

Because both of these thresholds will be exceeded across the majority of the habitat area in the Pinedale 

Anticline and Big Piney-LaBarge areas and the fact that pronghorn are particularly flight sensitive 

(Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2004), we are concerned that pronghorn could be pressured off 

substantial portions of their existing winter range under all of the development alternatives. Protection of 

undisturbed patches is needed within crucial winter habitat areas in the Pinedale Anticline and Big PineyLaBarge, plus more extensive protection in refugia established in areas of winter and crucial winter 

habitat that fall outside of the oil and gas fields. 

Critical Habitat Patch Size for Pronghorn This bar chart was not picked up by the scanner, but is available 

on the hard copy (page 18). Figure 3. Bar chart illustrating the percent of the habitat in patches greater 

than 600 acres in size for each of the three well spacings. 

Wildlife Summary:, The results presented here illustrate that wildlife habitat including ungulate crucial 

winter habitats and sage-grouse breeding and rearing habit will be compromised where it overlaps with 

the oil and gas fields to the point of substantial reductions in use and, in some cases, abandonment. To 

maintain a multiple use management scenario across the Pinedale RA, there is tremendous need to 

provide reductions in development densities in some fields and the establishment and full protection of 

refugia from development outside of existing fields. This need is supported by the Draft RMP statement: 

A27-728 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cumulative Impacts 

“Because of the large amount of oil and gas reserves and existing leases in the planning area, loss of 

important habitat could occur throughout the planning area, depending on the economic feasibility of 

development and fluctuations in market price.” (Draft RMP, p. 4-184) Road Density for Three Well Pad 

Spacings This chart was not picked up by the scanner, but is available on the hard copy document (page 

19) Figure 4. Cumulative distribution of road density values for the three hypothetical well spacings. 

The literature discussed previously and the analysis presented here provide abundant evidence that energy 

development at the well pad spacings proposed will negatively affect wildlife. We also understand that 

the biological research on the impacts is not complete and additional field research is needed. However, 

gaps in scientific knowledge about the species discussed above and other resources must not stop or delay 

decisions to protect wildlife resources by planning for a more ecologically sustainable pattern of oil and 

gas development across the Pinedale Resource Area. We recommend application of the “precautionary 

principle” of conservation biology, which states that precautionary measures should be taken when a 

certain activity or inactivity threatens to harm human health or the environment, even when science has 

not fully established cause-and-effect relationships (Groom et al. 2006). This principle is rooted in the 

recognition that scientific understanding of ecosystems is complicated by numerous factors, including 

dynamic ecosystem processes and the various effects of human activities. Put simply, it is easier to 

prevent harm to biodiversity than to attempt to repair it later.

Response: It is not appropriate to assume 40-acre, or even 160-acre, well spacing throughout the rest of 

the planning area, where large areas would be unavailable for leasing. The RMP will not authorize any 

activity on the ground. Site-specific analysis of field development typically occurs at the project NEPA 

level, such as in the Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline EISs.

Comment: The Draft RMP should have used GIS to conduct build-out analysis (as described above, but 

for the full RA) and habitat fragmentation analysis to evaluate the impacts on wildlife as recommended in 

our report Wildlife at a Crossroads: Energy Development in Western Wyoming. The Draft RMP does not 

use spatial analysis to evaluate indirect or cumulative impacts. It does not evaluate how route density, 

distance-to-road, or patch size varies across the landscape generally, in specific wildlife habitats or 

specific management units presented in the alternatives. The Draft RMP does not analyze or establish 

goals for habitat fragmentation thresholds. The oil and gas development (including all related 

infrastructure described under the preferred alternative and the conservation alternative will clearly cause 

substantial habitat fragmentation. Infrastructure must be evaluated using the latest science and spatial 

analysis and the results need to be used to craft a preferred alternative that helps protect wildlife and other 

resources.

Response: The RMP will not authorize any activity on the ground. Site-specific analysis of field 

development typically occurs at the project NEPA level, such as in the Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline 

EISs.

Comment: The cumulative impact section of this DEIS provides the reader with very little specific 

information. Page 4-254 presents a shopping list of areas where potential impacts could arise and 

concludes that impacts would also reduce the capability to maintain current population objectives. This 

general statement needs to be expanded to provide the reader with some quantification of just what can be 

expected. Based on maps 2-7,8 and 9, it is clear that energy development alone will have significant 

impacts on big game habitats and populations in the Pinedale Resource Management Area. These impacts 

need to be placed in perspective with those resulting from other management activities on the 

management area as well as those encountered by migrating big game animals that move beyond the 

RMA boundaries during at some periods of the year. Here again (4-255) is the admission that big game 

animals will be displaced by energy development activities resulting in their needing to find alternative 

habitats. These alternative habitats and their capability to support increased numbers of animals are never 

Pinedale RMP A27-729 
Appendix 27—Cumulative Impacts Final EIS 

discussed. Animals displaced to private lands and increased use of feed grounds by elk will result in 

increased costs to private landowners and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. These economic 

impacts and associated management problems need to be discussed in the RMP/DEIS.

Response: The RMP will not authorize any on-the-ground activities. Therefore, it is not possible to 

determine exactly where and what the impacts to individual wildlife species would be. We can predict 

that the development of 7,000 new wells will impact big game herds. BLM is unable to predict the 

magnitude of that impact. Big game animals will be displaced into less-suitable habitats. Alternative 

habitats are generally not available for these animals. BLM cannot predict the precise impact of that 

displacement (through overcrowding, insufficient or low-quality forage, or other impacts) on populations, 

or the lag time that would be required before the impact is detectable. It is not likely that oil and gas 

activities in known areas of production will impact numbers of elk on feedgrounds. Most impacts would 

be to mule deer, pronghorn, and sage-grouse populations.

Comment: Big game animals in their seasonal migrations integrate impacts across a broad array of 

disturbances both in and out of the Pinedale Resource Management Area. The BLM must do a more 

credible job in applying their knowledge of the area and existing scientific literature and studies to assess 

cumulative impacts resulting from implementation of any alternatives in the DEIS. Johnson et al. (2005) 

provide a novel approach to assessing cumulative effects from mining disturbances and the application of 

this approach would greatly improve evaluation of cumulative effects for the RMP/DEIS.

Response: The RMP will not authorize any on-the-ground activities. Therefore, it is not possible to 

determine exactly where and what the impacts to individual wildlife species would be. We can predict 

that the development of 7,000 new wells will impact big game herds. We are unable to predict the 

magnitude of that impact. Big game animals will be displaced into less-suitable habitats. We cannot 

predict the precise impact of that displacement on populations, or the lag time that would be required 

before the impact is detectable.

Comment: The cumulative effects of all human-induced practices in the sagebrush steppe on sage-grouse 

population health as measured by numbers of active leks, trends in numbers of males counted, and chicks 

per hen need to be fully evaluated and studied. The shortcomings in the Draft EIS for the Pinedale RMP 

should be corrected to have a scientifically defensible document which will help minimize negative 

impacts to sage-grouse from planned management activities.

Response: The RMP is an allocation document, determining allowable uses for the public lands rather 

than planned management activities. The RMP will not authorize any on-the-ground activities. Chapter 4 

attempts to describe impacts that would occur due to the activities that could be allowed, but it is not 

possible to specifically quantify impacts when specific on-the-ground actions are not known. Specific 

impacts would be analyzed at the project implementation level, such as for the Jonah Field or Pinedale 

Anticline EISs.

Comment: 8. Page 4-254: The cumulative effects section provides very little specific impact information. 

The analysis could be strengthened by use of GIS analysis to graphically depict how availability of 

habitats have been affected over time through management actions under the current RMP and quantify 

how populations and habitats are likely to be impacted under each alternative in the draft RMP.

Response: Mapping of big game habitat use has not been conducted for long enough to completely 

explain the gradual movement of habitat use. Big game crucial winter ranges, for example, tend to change 

over time for a number of reasons, including plant succession, weather patterns, human activity, and 

migration access. It is not possible to quantify all these causes.

A27-730 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cumulative Impacts 

Oil and Gas 

Comment: Finally, the BLM again incorporates a conflicting RFD Scenario for the BLM’s \if cumulative 

impacts analysis compared to the RFD Scenarios in Table 4-2 or Appendix A10. See RMP DEIS, pgs. 4-

244 - 4-247.

Response: The discrepancy in RFD predictions has been corrected in the final EIS.

Comment: Also important to developing and evaluating management alternatives are creating oil and gas 

development infrastructure build-out scenarios for each alternative. Readily available GIS technology can 

generate GIS data layers for different development scenarios guided by parameters and constraints for 

development provided in the RFD and the management alternatives. Please see the attached interim report 

prepared for the Little Snake BLM field office in Colorado: Analysis of the Little Snake RA “Sagebrush 

Habitat Fragmentation Proposal” from the Cooperating Agencies. This report illustrates how an oil and 

gas build-out scenario can be generated and used to predict indirect and cumulative impacts on wildlife. 

To demonstrate the value of developing build-out scenarios for different management alternatives in the 

Pinedale RA we completed a build-out scenario of well pads and roads for a hypothetical oil and gas field 

at the 160, 40 and 10 acre well pad spacings listed for the major fields in the RFD (Draft RMP, p. A10-1). 

We used the CommunityViz extension to the standard ArcGIS software to position well pads on the 

landscape. Based on Appendix 10, well pad sizes were set to 10 acres for the 160 acre spacing and 4 acres 

for the 40 and 10 acre spacings; and roads were assigned a width of 40 feet. Well pads were populated in 

a random fashion by the software until they achieved a 160 acre spacing. Roads were then digitized to 

connect the well pads to an initial minimal road network. Road lengths were minimized. The process was 

repeated to achieve an infill spacing of 40 acres and subsequently 10 acres. Software constraints were 

used to prevent well pads from overlapping roads or other well pads. This constraint could not be 

maintained and some well pad overlap exists at the 10 acre spacing. (Note this limitation in our software 

causes our results to underestimate the fragmentation and wildlife impacts.) Please see maps of this 

hypothetical oil and gas field in Figure 1. 

well pad spacing: 160 acre; well pad spacing: 40 acre; well pad spacing: 10 acre 

(these diagrams for the 160, 40 and 10 acre well pad spacing were not picked up by the scanner, but are 

available on the hard copy document). 

Figure 1. Sample build-out scenarios of roads and well pads for a hypothetical landscape at well spacings 

identified as likely in the RFD and Appendix 10 (Draft RMP, page Al0-1). Roads are 40 feet wide and 

well pads are 10 acres in size at the 160 acre per pad spacing and 4 acres in size for the tighter well 

spacings. The total area is 16.003 acres. We used the results of these build-out scenarios matching the 

RFD projections for well pad density (160, 40 and 10 acre well pad spacings) to assess indirect and 

cumulative impacts on wildlife. We did this by measuring the habitat fragmentation metrics of route 

density, distance to route and patch size. We compared the results with biological studies of road and oil 

and gas development impacts on specific species. 

Results show graphically and quantitatively what the oil and gas development will be like, allowing us to 

project impacts on wildlife species in different parts of the planning area. Results from looking at this 

hypothetical landscape can be used to assess wildlife impacts in the Pinedale Anticline Field (projected 

density 120 to 160 acres per pad), the greater Big Piney-LaBarge area (projected density 40 acres per 

pad), the Jonah Field (projected density 10 acres per pad) and other regions of the resource area that could 

achieve these well densities under one or more of the management alternatives (e.g. “minimally 

developed areas” projected spacings up to 160 acres per pad). While these results were generated as a 

hypothetical example, the BLM should use these techniques to do an actual build-out for the full resource 

area under each alternative. 

Pinedale RMP A27-731 
Appendix 27—Cumulative Impacts Final EIS 

Additionally, the results measured here are conservative because they include only impacts from roads 

and well pads but no other existing or new infrastructure such as pipelines or pumping stations. 

Consequently, our results will notably underestimate the true wildlife impacts.

Response: The RMP will not authorize any activity on the ground. Site-specific analysis of field 

development typically occurs at the project NEPA level, such as in the Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline 

EISs.

Water 

Comment: Impacts associated with ground water depletions - near-surface and deep aquifers - must be 

addressed in a cumulative sense because the problems are largely cumulative in nature. This means BLM 

will need to identify all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future sources of ground water depletions 

(industrial, agricultural and domestic), estimate the depletion quantities and determine how the overall 

‘loss of ground water will impact aquifers, water wells, springs and’ surface water flows. This analysis 

must also include increased domestic ground water use from gas field employees living and working in 

the region. The RMP DEIS does not address ground water depletions cumulatively or otherwise.

Response: Water is the purview of the State of Wyoming. Total depletions are more appropriately 

addressed at the field level document rather than the RMP.

Land Issues 

Comment: PAGE: 4-3, SECTION: 4.1.3, RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EIS states: The decisions 

proposed in the alternatives apply to public lands only. However, cumulative impact analyses may also 

consider decisions made for resources managed by other entities or individuals. EXPLANATION: Local 

Governments agree with the statement but provisions regulating surface resources based on ownership of 

federal minerals are inconsistent with statement and unlawful. See e.g. Comment Ch. 2-#153 citing 

Opinion of the Solicitor, Legal Responsibilities of BLM for Oil and Gas Leasing and Operations on Split 

Estate Lands (April 1988) (concluding that BLM ownership of mineral estate does not permit limits on 

privately-owned surface).

Response: This assumption relates to the practice of including the impacts of activities on private lands to 

resources on BLM-administered public lands. BLM must consider the cumulative impacts of all known or 

foreseeable activities, whether carried out by BLM or not. Actions carried out on private lands by private 

parties may affect resources that occur on BLM-administered public lands.

Air Quality 

Comment: PAGE: 4.5, SECTION: 4.2.1, EXPLANATION: Local Governments note6 that seasonal 

closures for mineral development and construction concentrate all development activities and related 

emissions during the summer months. This also coincides with the fire season. The cumulative effects are 

significant loss in visibility and increased haze. While these air quality impacts may meet WDEQ 

standards because they average out over the annual time period, the RMP needs to address the fact that 

the area suffers significantly during the 7 months.

Response: Potential impacts from oil and gas development can only be addressed by modeling. No 

modeling was done for the Pinedale RMP; however, this issue is being addressed for the Pinedale 

supplemental EIS and extensive modeling has been and is being carried out. In addition, smoke from 

wildfires is exempt/excepted from the Regional Haze Rule. In the case of a large wildfire such as the one 

that occurred west of Pinedale this past June, impacts of emissions from drilling would be dwarfed by 

emissions from the fire.

A27-732 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Cumulative Impacts 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

Comment: PAGE: 4-233 SECTION: 4.19 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: General Comments 

EXPLANATION: This section fails to properly disclose impacts of VRM Class II on management and 

existing uses, such as oil and gas leases, rights-of-way and livestock grazing permits. Discussion omits 

disclosure of poor condition of current commercial timber stands and risk of catastrophic fire. 

Management actions that reduce the treatment options for these stands, including special management 

area designation, will only increase risk of such fire. RFD does not conform to criteria and is plainly 

wrong. Thus, cumulative effects relating to mineral development is equally flawed. Cumulative effects 

discussion regarding land available and not available, and impacts on existing leases that may not be 

developed poorly displayed. Social Economic analysis is flawed, especially as to limited revenue sources 

for local governments that must deal with impacts and restrictions that tear up county roads, leave trash 

and garbage and create a transient work force instead of contributing to community building.

Response: New VRM Class II designations would have no impacts on existing oil and gas leases, rights 

of way, or livestock grazing permits. New oil and gas leases would include the new VRM classification, 

which would not prohibit development of the lease. Condition of timber stands is found in Chapter 3, 

Section 3.4. Designation of special designations and management areas does not inherently increase the 

risk of fire. BLM forest and fire prevention policy would still apply in these areas. BLM finds that the 

RFD is appropriate and adequate. 

Pinedale RMP A27-733 
Appendix 27—Appendices Final EIS 

Appendices 

General Comment Responses: No GCRs are associated with this category.

Appendix 2 

Comment: Appendix 2 purportedly presents wildlife mitigation guidelines but there is little information 

here to suggest just how impacts to big game animals and their habitats will be mitigated.

Response: Appendix 2 contains the mitigation stipulations and conditions of approval currently used by 

the PFO and would only apply to Alternative 1. It includes substantial mitigations, such as seasonal 

restrictions for activities in crucial and important wildlife habitats.

Comment: Appendix 2 2nd Sentence Line A2-1 Commentor WGFD Add activities associated with oil 

and gas development to the list.

Response: This change has been made in the final EIS.

Appendix 3 

Comment: Appendix 3 also presents some generic discussion of mitigation but here again there is little 

detail. I fail to understand the following statement taken from Appendix 3 mitigation recommendations: 

“The affected habitat will be contemporaneously mitigated using mitigations from the affected resource.” 

What does this mean? The BLM must clarify this statement as to what is meant by “mitigated using 

mitigations.” The mitigation recommendation (A3-9): “Where habitat effects are unavoidable, effective 

wildlife refuge areas that contain alternate habitat should be available,” is a good idea, but the document 

fails to identify the available of alternative habitats. My interpretation of data from Sawyer et al. (2006) 

suggests that little alternative habitat is available. Furthermore consideration must be given to the 

consequences to habitats and populations from crowding animals into smaller areas that may be of 

marginal quality. As discussed by Bartmann et al. (1992) crowding may have a density dependent impact 

of reducing animal survival and damaging resources.

Response: Vague text in Appendix 3 regarding “mitigated using mitigations” has been removed. 

Generally, all suitable habitats are occupied. Chapter 4 discusses the potential for population impacts as 

habitats are developed. Chapter 4 of the final EIS has been updated to address the impacts of crowding.

Comment: Having experienced the failure of active management of development to avoid impacts 

through the many exceptions and changes to the Anticline and Jonah projects, and the failure of BLM to 

use the advice of the Pinedale Anticline Working Group, we do not support “performance-based” 

management as a substitute for direct management and enforcement by BLM. It is an unproven concept in 

managing natural resource exploitation, which demands clear weighing and balancing of multiple uses 

and values. Neither BLM nor the companies have proven they can or will effectively balance 

development for economic gain against protection of the other resource values owned by the public. 

Appendix 3 is vague, inconclusive, and does not provide assurances of performance accountability in the 

development process.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale. Appendix 3 has been 

revised in the final EIS.

Comment: Appendix 3: Appendix 3 lists mitigation measures that could be applied, based on sitespecific environmental analyses. It is unclear what if any mitigation measures are mandatory or under 

A27-734 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Appendices 

what circumstances they will apply. It is also unclear how mitigations differ from or are complementary 

to best management practices. There is not sufficient guidance provided with the mitigation measures 

listed under the Wildlife section to know what actions will be taken, when or how their effectiveness will 

be evaluated. The final RMP should describe the mitigations that will be applied under each alternative.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale. Appendix 3 has been 

revised in the final EIS.

Comment: Page A3-1 Comment - There is a discussion about performance-based stipulations, but the 

term is never really defined or explained.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale. Appendix 3 has been 

revised in the final EIS.

Comment: V. Appendix 3 Must Be Entirely Revised Or Abandoned. Appendix 3 of the RMP DEIS 

seems to be intended to provide the core provisions regarding mitigation of the impacts of development, 

particularly oil and gas development, for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Many of the provisions in this appendix 

are so vague, discretionary and non-binding that they provide no assurance that any mitigation will 

actually be applied or required, nor do they provide any measure of what constitutes compliance with 

them or what must be achieved. If these provisions are retained in the RMP they should be reworded so 

that the following, at a minimum, are readily discernible: 

All vague, non-binding and discretionary language should be eliminated. (“maximum extent practicable,” 

“could be considered,” “should be avoided,” “minimized by any reasonable measure,” “reclamation in 

critical wildlife habitats may be required. . . ,” “as soon as practicable,” etc., etc.). Such provisions 

entirely fail to specify what if anything will be done with respect to mitigation. Provisions may be 

applied, or they may not be, and no one knows. What they must achieve is almost entirely unknown. And 

given BLM’s recent propensity in the Pinedale Field Office to use the categorical exclusions from NEPA 

analysis available under section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 when development is pursued on a 

site-specific basis, there is no guarantee whatsoever the application of these vague provisions will even be 

considered in the future, as BLM claims will be the case, thus absolving it of a need to engage in 

“prescriptive” mitigation at the RMIP level. All provisions should be specified in clear, mandatory terms 

so that there is clarity about what is required, when it will be required, and so on. 

Clear standards for what must be achieved should be specified. In particular, ecologically functioning 

sagebrush habitat must be the specified goal and standard for acceptable reclamation. See expert 

comments of Drs. Carl Wambolt, Clait Braun, and William Alldredge (Exhibits 1, 2, and 3). Anything 

less (or more vague) provides no assurance that BLM lands in the Pinedale Field Office will provide 

anything like their current ecological values and services for literally hundreds of years. What a “seed mix 

proven effective for the predisturbance wildlife use” means is entirely unclear. A3-8. Does this mean 

ecologically functional sagebrush habitat must be reestablished or would simply planting sagebrush seeds 

be sufficient, regardless of whether they actually established? This uncertainty must be eliminated and 

clear standards and measures of success provided. 

Clear and specified means for monitoring compliance with the “guidelines” must be specified. The 

questions of “who, what, when and where” must be answered for the provisions in Appendix 3 to have 

any utility whatsoever. Currently there is no such clarity. As recently demonstrated in BLM’s document 

prepared by the Pinedale Field Office entitled “Commitments Made In Decision Documents Not Yet 

Achieved” (May, 2006), BLM has a poor history of complying with mitigation measures in this area, so it 

Pinedale RMP A27-735 
Appendix 27—Appendices Final EIS 

is crucial that specific measures be provided for monitoring and assurance of compliance with mitigation 

measures. 

What precisely the goal of mitigation is must be specified. For example, it is not apparent that BLM 

would have any clear goal regarding big game crucial winter ranges that are affected by oil and gas 

development. Again, in many circumstances the goal of mitigation must be to restore ecologically 

functioning sagebrush habitats.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale. Appendix 3 has been 

revised in the final EIS.

Comment: Underlying the “performance based” guidelines in Appendix 3 seems to be a philosophical 

view that there is a need for “adaptability” that is somehow not available with respect to “prescriptive” 

standards, particularly any “prescriptive” standards developed and applied at the RMP or leasing stage. 

There is no basis for this claim; “performance based” standards seem to primarily be a means for BLM to 

avoid stating clearly what must be achieved and the provisions by which a stated goal will be achieved. 

They contribute primarily toward making the RMP process a considerably less meaningful or useful 

exercise. They are mostly a mechanism to create uncertainty as to what, when, and where things will be 

done or actions taken. As discussed in detail above, BLM has more than sufficient retained authority 

when it issues an oil and gas lease to later require any number of provisions that are deemed necessary to 

protect the environment. This is true even if stipulations have been attached to a lease. So, for example, if 

as result of decisions made in the RMP BLM attaches a stipulation prohibiting drilling in big game crucial 

winter range from November 15 through April 30 as a requirement for issuing leases in crucial winter 

ranges, this does not mean it is prohibited from taking other actions in the future that may be necessary to 

protect big game winter range, or other environmental values. It has more than sufficient authority to later 

“adapt” as needed, and the attachment of the stipulation does not change this fact. The stipulation simply 

codifies a long-standing view (strongly endorsed by the WGFD) that such stipulations are needed at a 

minimum to protect big game winter ranges. 

The BLM should recognize these points and ensure that the RMIP “prescribes” mitigation that is clearly 

needed, particularly any mitigation that is required to ensure the management direction for a particularly 

oil and gas management area is achieved. Fulfilling the management direction established in the RMP, 

particularly for Unavailable Areas and Large Block NSO Areas, and meeting other environmental 

protection responsibilities should be the overarching objective of mitigation, not “adaptability” per se. 

“Prescriptive” measures will often better ensure these overarching requirements are met if for no other 

reason than that by attaching them as a condition of leasing there is no question that BLM has retained 

rights to specify the nature of development. And, again, the BLM retains more than sufficient authority to 

“adapt” in the future, as conditions warrant. Furthermore, as noted above, the Mineral Leasing Act 

requires that “[e]ach lease shall contain provisions for the purpose of insuring the exercise of . . . care in 

the operation” of a lease, and BLM is required to “regulate” surface disturbing activities on a lease “in the 

interest of conservation of surface resources.” 30 U.S.C. §§ 187, 226(g) (emphasis added). Consequently 

the BLM must ensure that sufficient “prescriptive” measures as are needed are attached to leases at the 

leasing stage so as to meet these and other obligations, and the RMP should unequivocally require such.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale. Appendix 3 has been 

revised in the final EIS.

Comment: Last, we would note that with respect to minerals Appendix 3 provides that “[e]ach new lease 

would be reviewed on its own merits to ensure the appropriate protective measures/stipulations are 

A27-736 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Appendices 

applied (see Appendices 2, 5, 12, and 18).” A3-8. We believe this is a crucial provision and BLM should 

emphasize it to a much greater degree. It is crucial that the stipulations provided in Appendix 2, the Best 

Management Practices specified in Appendix 5, the seasonal stipulations specified in Appendix 12, and 

the protections specified in Appendix 18 for listed species be fully applied at the leasing stage when there 

is no question BLM enjoys its maximum rights to condition development and thus protect the natural 

environment. BLM should firmly commit to applying the provisions in these Appendices at the leasing 

stage as needed. If it pursues “perfolueance based” guidelines, they should be coupled with sufficient 

“prescriptive” measures so as to ensure protection of the natural environment, which is clearly BLM’s 

obligation under numerous legal authorities, and which should be the basis for all management actions at 

least in the Unavailable Areas and the Large Block NSO Areas, where environmental protection is the 

explicitly stated management objective.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale. Appendix 3 has been 

revised in the final EIS.

Comment: Appendix 3 Line A3-8 to A3-9 Commentor WGFD We strongly recommend adding the 

following language: “For additional wildlife mitigation measure, we recommend use of the Wyoming 

Game and Fish’s document titled “Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within 

Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats.” This document has been cited in the Casper RMP. Citation: 

WGFD. 2004. Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Crucial and 

Important Wildlife Habitats. Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Response: Appendix 3 has been revised in the final EIS.

Comment: PAGE: 2-113 SECTION: 2.5.5 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: Revise Appendix 3 to be 

performance based rather than prescriptive. EXPLANATION: The local governments support 

performance based management. The detailed “guidelines” in Appendix 3, however, are prescriptive in 

the sense that they require specific actions rather than standards to be achieved. Thus the RMP fails to 

achieve the goal of performance-based management.

Response: The final EIS has been changed to apply performance-based management to the project 

development scale, where it is most appropriate, not the land use planning scale. Appendix 3 has been 

revised in the final EIS.

Appendix 4 

Comment: PAGE: SECTION: Appendix 4 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: REVISE and REDO As to 

criteria insert: The BLM Planning Handbook recognizes this fundamental element, App. C, p. 18 where it 

states: “[ACEC] must require special management to: 

(1) Protect the area and prevent irreparable damage to resources or natural systems. 

(2) Protect life and promote safety in areas where natural hazards exist.” EXPLANATION: See 

Comments Ch. 2-196. The Appendix 4 omits the BLM Planning Handbook criteria and FLPMA criteria 

that an ACEC only be established where there is a threat to protection of the resources. 

Appendix 4 omits this important criteria. Because this is statutory and mandatory, both ACEC evaluation 

report and Appendix should be revised entirely.

Response: Appendix 4 is a summary of the ACEC review process, which was conducted by the RMP 

team. Individual relevance and importance criteria reports were prepared and are available on the project 

Pinedale RMP A27-737 
Appendix 27—Appendices Final EIS 

website at: 

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale/documents/PinedaleBLM_ACEC_Evaluation_Report.pdf. 

Appendix 5 

Comment: Chapter Appendix 5 Page Reducing Impacts Line A5-1 Commentor WGFD Add on-site 

mitigation to the list of bullet items.

Response: This is not a necessary addition as most of the items on the bullet list are forms of onsite 

mitigation.

Comment: Public scrutiny is essential for developing a new Resource Management Plan. The CEQ 

NEPA regulations require that an EIS disclose the “[m]eans to mitigate adverse environmental impacts.” 

40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(h). Direction established in a RMP also constitutes a rule under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, so BLM is required to “give interested persons an opportunity to participate” in 

development of RMP direction “through submission of written data, views, or arguments.” 5 U.S.C. § 

553(c). BLM has not satisfied these requirements because some of the direction that would be 

incorporated into the new RMP was not presented for public comment in the DEIS. For example, the 

DEIS’s direction for reducing water and watershed under Alternative 4 makes repeated reference to 

Appendix 5: “c. ... Discharge of produced waters to public lands would be authorized only when impacts 

on water quality and stream channels would be monitored and mitigated, or when found to be beneficial 

for other uses (Appendix 5). d. Use of produced waters to assist in reclamation could be considered on a 

case-by-case basis and would be governed by operating WDEQ standards and appropriate irrigation water 

quality standards (Appendix 5). * * * a. BMPs would be applied to mitigate surface disturbance and 

control non-point source erosion (Appendix 5).” 

Similar references to Appendix 5 are given in the management direction for Alternative 2 (DEIS at 2-68) 

and Alternative 3 (DEIS at 2-97 and 2-98): Appendix 5 contains the direction on Fluid Mineral Best 

Management Practices. Even Alternative 1 (continuation of the 1988 RMP direction) relies heavily on 

Appendix 5: “The ... standard practices applied to surface disturbing activities (Appendix 5) would be 

used to control nonpoint sources of water pollution. These are examples of BMPs relative to the Clean 

Water Act of 1972, as amended. * * * 

Examples of management practices to be applied throughout the planning area would include seasonal 

closures imposed because of saturated soil conditions and the standard practices applied to surface 

disturbing activities (Appendix 2 and Appendix 5). * * * Ground water protection would continue to be 

provided by applying the procedures de-scribed in Appendix 5. Special precautions would be taken to 

ensure protection of ground water quality when surface disturbance was to occur on ground water 

recharge zones. Criteria for determining depth of fresh water are found in Appendices 2 and 5.” RMP 

DEIS at 2-35. Unfortunately, there is nothing in Appendix 5 of the DEIS that specifically deals with 

protecting water quality. 

Response: BLM has provided for public input through the scoping process and again through the public 

comment period on the draft EIS. Concerning the mitigation, the commenter is correct in that the 

mitigation is often a list of measures that could be implemented. The decision to implement mitigation 

measures is made at the project-specific level.

Comment: The “direction” offered in Appendix 5 consists largely of generic lists of measures for 

reducing impacts to big game crucial winter range (e.g., conduct “remote well monitoring”), reducing 

impacts to sage grouse habitat (e.g., conduct “habitat enhancement”), reducing impacts to other wildlife 

habitat, reducing impacts to VRM Class II and III areas (e.g., screen facilities from view), reducing 

impacts to air quality (e.g., post speed limits on roads), and reducing impacts from fluid mineral 

A27-738 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Appendices 

construction, operation and construction (e.g., use “submersible pumps”). The only items I could find in 

Appendix 5 that relate to water quality concerns are the following: 

• “Avoidance of facility placement on steep slopes....” 

• “Storage of chemicals within secondary containment in case of a spill” • “Onsite bioremediation 

of oil field wastes and spills” 

DEIS, Appendix 5, page A-53. However, the DEIS states that these measures “may be applied to mitigate 

impacts.” Id. at A5-1. Thus, these are not actually management requirements and, instead, are simply 

options BLM could consider requiring on certain projects. In addition, these statements are so ambiguous 

that there is no basis for determining whether they would effectively mitigate impacts. A deeper problem 

- with the text of the proposed direction and Appendix 5 - is the proposed mitigation measures are not 

described in any meaningful detail.

Response: Because BMPs are not always appropriate for all sites or types of projects, specific mitigation 

measures must be tailored to each project. BLM intends to continue adding practices to the BMP lists as 

new technology is developed and new practices prove effective. 

Comment: What does BLM consider to be a “steep slope”? Which chemicals and quantities would 

require secondary containment? What type of bioremediation would be used? Would bioremediation be 

used for all types of spills or are there only certain types of chemical spills that would be subject to this 

type of mitigation? Where are the Clean Water Act BMPs to mitigate surface disturbance and control 

non-point source pollution? Where is the direction for stream channel conditions? How would “impacts 

on ... stream channels be ... mitigated”? What are the irrigation water quality standards? Where is the 

direction “for determining depth of fresh water”? Where are the seasonal closure provisions for protecting 

saturated soils? I could not find any of this information in Appendix 5, even though the DEIS informs 

readers this sort of information can be found there. 

Response: Steep slopes are generally those exceeding 25 percent, except in areas of sensitive or erosive 

soils, where activities are limited to slopes less than 15 percent. Specific actions regarding spill 

containment and bioremediation is beyond the scope of the RMP. The appropriate course of action would 

be determined on a case-by-case basis in a field development EIS depending on the location of the spill 

and the types of chemicals used. Stream channel conditions would be required for meeting PFC standards, 

as a minimum assessment of physical channel stability. Mitigation of impacts on stream channels would 

be tailored to the project type, intensity, extent, and projected impacts. Groundwater quality standards are 

listed in Chapter 8 of the DEQ Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations, pages 8–10, 

http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/WQDrules/Chapter_08.pdf 

Per the CFR: The operator shall isolate freshwater-bearing and other usable water containing 5,000 ppm 

or less of dissolved solids and other mineral-bearing formations and protect them from contamination. 

The operator shall conduct tests and surveys of the effectiveness of such measures using procedures and 

practices approved or prescribed by the authorized officer. Closures for protection of saturated soils 

would be applied case-by-case when soils are saturated because this condition changes annually. 

Additional BMPs have been added to Appendix 5 in the Final EIS regarding produced water and surface 

discharge. 

Appendix 11 

Comment: Appendix 11- Monitoring and Evaluation The DEIS states, “To address the changing 

conditions and provide management flexibility that uses best management practices (BMP), the Pinedale 

Field Office (PFO) conducts monitoring and evaluation, which measures the effectiveness of existing 

Pinedale RMP A27-739 
Appendix 27—Appendices Final EIS 

actions through monitoring and application of new scientific research. Monitoring and evaluation 

analyzes the current resource conditions as a result of implemented actions and identifies and 

recommends alternatives or modified actions, as necessary, to reach established objectives and goals. This 

process provides the optimum means to check the effectiveness of management actions.” Comment - It is 

important that monitoring and evaluation be done cost-effectively and in cooperation with other partners 

such as the USFS and WY DEQ. BLM should develop prioritized monitoring plans to address 

reclamation, wildlife, visual resource, and air quality issues, and staff the office for adequate data 

collection and evaluation in cooperation with industry and other stakeholders. 

Response: Staffing issues will not be addressed in this RMP. Development of prioritized monitoring 

plans, such as for reclamation, would occur on a project-specific basis. Air quality monitoring is the 

responsibility of Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 

Comment: PAGE: 2-14 SECTION: App. 11 RECOMMENDED CHANGE: EXPLANATION: The 

appendix does not adequately address monitoring needs with respect to vegetation and livestock grazing. 

BLM should have an active monitoring program for all allotments and visit them annually. Monitoring 

only every 10 years is not monitoring because it is unlikely to measure change over time or to address 

management issues.

Response: Monitoring every 10 years is appropriate for tracking trends in condition of upland range sites. 

Monitoring is not limited to every 10 years in Appendix 11, but is flexible to the type of information to be 

collected and the specific characteristics of the area to be monitored.

Appendix 12 

Comment: Page Number & Issue: Appendix 12, A-4 Alt 4 Recommendations: BLM should use specific 

category language on any stipulation language.

Response: The language in the final EIS has been updated to clarify the point that the seasonal 

stipulations for raptors apply throughout the entire planning area. 

Comment: Appendix 12 Page A-12-2&3 Commentor WGFD Edit Table A l2-4 under Elk Feedgrounds 

add “NSO within 1 mile of elk feedgrounds; Then add same verbiage to Table A 12 -2 and A 12-3 for Elk 

Feedgrounds.

Response: This change has been made in the final EIS, except for Alternative 2, where feedgrounds on 

BLM-administered lands would be eliminated.

Appendix 18 

Comment: Appendix 18, page A18-7, the discussion of black-footed ferret recovery/reintroduction refers 

to Map 3 but no map 3 is available. Further, it references the Wyoming Black-tailed Prairie Dog 

Management Plan as providing guidelines and encouraging the removal of pest status for the prairie dog. 

This management plan was never adopted by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and was 

presented only as a draft for their consideration. The discussion in 2 should be removed. In addition, the 

citation is not found in the Literature Cited. The figures referenced in the discussion above follow; the 

data from which these figures were developed are available from the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department and the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and the BLM PFO.

Response: The issues associated with references to Map 3 and the literature citation have been remedied 

in the final EIS. However, the language concerning removal of pest status is very applicable; it conflicts 

with the sensitive species status of white-tailed prairie dogs within BLM. This plan only addresses BLM 

A27-740 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 27—Appendices 

lands, and any management actions concerning white-tailed prairie dogs must be considered to prevent 

future listing under the ESA. Removal of this species across the landscape has significantly contributed to 

its decline and to the petition that it be listed in the ESA. 

Pinedale RMP A27-741