Final EIS Chapter 2—Introduction 

Pinedale RMP 2-1 

CHAPTER 2—DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes four alternatives for management of the planning area. Alternative 1 (No Action 

Alternative) includes Resource Management Plan (RMP) maintenance and updates to the direction 

provided by the Record of Decision (ROD) and RMP for the Pinedale Resource Area (1988) and new 

direction and policy that subsequently have been implemented. Alternatives were developed to establish a 

framework for measuring the impacts that might result from management decisions. The alternatives 

represent reasonable approaches to managing land and activities consistent with law, regulation, and 

policy. 

Section 2.2 presents an overview of the alternatives development process. Section 2.3 presents the 

management actions common to all alternatives. Section 2.4 contains summaries of each alternative. 

Section 2.5 contains detailed descriptions of each alternative, including management actions to be 

implemented by BLM (see Table 2-25 for a summary comparison of alternatives). Appendix 3 contains 

the mitigation guidelines and operating standards that would apply to oil and gas development and other 

surface disturbing or disruptive activities for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

2.2.1 Alternatives Development Process 

BLM complied with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1500 

in developing alternatives for this final environmental impact statement (EIS), including seeking public 

input and analyzing reasonable alternatives. Where necessary to meet the planning criteria, to address 

issues and comments from cooperating agencies and the public, or to provide a reasonable range of 

alternatives, the alternatives include management options for the planning area that would modify or 

amend decisions made in the 1988 ROD and RMP for the Pinedale Field Office (PFO). Some decisions 

from the 1988 ROD and RMP are acceptable and reasonable; in these instances, there is limited need to 

develop alternative management prescriptions. In some cases, management prescriptions are the same 

across all alternatives or may reflect only a decision to implement or not implement an action. 

Public input received during the scoping process and the 120-day public comment period for the draft EIS 

was considered to ensure that all issues and concerns would be addressed, as appropriate, in developing 

the alternatives. Appendix 27 contains the full comments and responses and is included on a compact disc 

(CD) on the back cover of Volume 2 of the hard copy document. The scoping and public comment 

processes, as well as opportunities for future public and agency involvement, are summarized in Section 

5.2. 

Comments received during and after the formal scoping period cover a wide range of issues. The pace and 

scale of oil and gas development in the planning area, and how this activity affects BLM’s multiple-use 

mandate and ability to manage other resources and resource uses in the area are of particular concern. 

Many comments address management of oil and gas development and other resources. Table 2-1 lists 

some of these comments along with short descriptions of how they are addressed in this final EIS. 
Chapter 2—Introduction Final EIS 

2-2 Pinedale RMP 

Table 2-1. Public Comments and Their Treatment in the Final EIS 

Public Comment How/Where It Is Addressed in the Final EIS 

ACEC nominations 

Numerous areas were nominated for consideration as Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC). These areas are addressed either in the Special Designations and 

Management Areas sections of this chapter or in Section 2.2.2, Alternatives and 

Management Options Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis. See Appendix 

4 and the Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria for Existing and Proposed 

ACECs for evaluation of whether each proposed area meets the relevance and 

importance criteria for ACECs. 

Areas recommended 

for closure to oil and 

gas leasing or No 

Surface Occupancy 

(NSO) restriction 

Many comments were received regarding closing certain areas to oil and gas leasing 

and development. A range of alternatives in areas available and unavailable for oil and 

gas leasing are presented in this chapter (Maps 2-1 through 2-4). 

Clustered development 

and directional drilling 

Directional drilling is taking place in the planning area and is discussed in the minerals 

sections of Chapters 3 and 4. Mitigations for impacts to sagebrush ecosystems and 

important wildlife habitats in Alternatives 3 and 4 could necessitate directional drilling in 

some areas. 

Phased development 

Phased development strategies are included in Alternatives 3 and 4. The planning area 

would be divided into three areas for management of oil and gas leasing and 

development, with some areas unavailable for leasing. Having areas unavailable for 

leasing provides a balance of land uses on a landscape scale and would provide for 

phased development of the planning area. 

Split estate issues 

The management of split estate (for example, areas where surface lands are privately 

owned with the underlying mineral estate publicly owned) is conducted according to 

United States and Wyoming laws. The working relationship between private landowners 

and oil and gas companies is determined according to these laws. The Wyoming 

Congress passed legislation in early 2005 concerning this issue. 

Specific drilling 

requirements for soil, 

water, and vegetation 

protection 

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. The RMP establishes the desired outcomes of 

land management and management actions and operating standards designed to meet 

those goals. Decisions or requirements regarding drilling of wells are found in the 

alternatives and in Appendix 3 (operating standards). 

Air quality protection 

standards 

Regulation of air quality is the responsibility of the EPA, with many of these 

responsibilities delegated to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 

Air quality is addressed to the extent of BLM’s authority in the alternatives. 

Wildlife habitat, 

watershed, and fishery 

protection 

Most practices suggested for maintaining the functionality of wildlife habitats are 

included in Appendix 3 and Appendix 5. Numerous management actions and operating 

standards for protecting watersheds and habitats are included in the alternatives. 

Public participation 

The level of public participation in the RMP and EIS as well as subsequent actions will 

be consistent with program direction, NEPA, and Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA). 

Adaptive management 

The outcome-based standards presented in Appendix 3 are a form of adaptive 

management. Adaptive management is further addressed at the gas field development 

level in the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah EISs and will be addressed in future 

development projects. 

Reduction of road 

density and habitat 

fragmentation 

Management actions included in the wildlife sections of Alternatives 3 and 4 are 

intended to address habitat fragmentation and density of roads and other developments 

and disturbances. 

Many of the decisions from the existing Pinedale RMP have been implemented. In some cases, 

implementation of these decisions established valid existing rights or other obligations that are important 

considerations in preparing the revised Pinedale RMP. For example, many of the oil and gas resources in 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Introduction 

Pinedale RMP 2-3 

the planning area are leased. The presence of these valid existing rights influences, and sometimes limits, 

management choices. Specific to the oil and gas program, the alternatives in this final EIS address the 

availability and allocation of lands for future oil and gas leasing, potential lease stipulations, and 

additional mitigation to be considered and applied during the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) 

process. 

The development of alternatives began with compiling and analyzing Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 

were then developed and analyzed. Cooperating agencies reviewed the draft alternatives to solicit input 

before development of Alternative 4. Alternative 4 was developed last. 

2.2.2 Alternatives and Management Options Considered But 

Eliminated From Detailed Analysis 

Several alternatives and management options were considered as possible methods of resolving resource 

management issues and conflicts. Some of the alternatives and options considered were received during 

public scoping. The alternatives and options listed below were eliminated from detailed analysis because 

they were considered unreasonable and/or were not found to be necessary to achieve the management 

goals of the alternatives. 

Closure to Livestock Grazing 

The elimination of livestock grazing from all public lands in the planning area was considered as a 

method for resolving some of the planning issues related to vegetation resources. This option was, 

however, eliminated from detailed analysis. 

Resource conditions on BLM-administered public lands in the planning area, including range vegetation, 

watershed, and wildlife habitat, do not warrant prohibition of livestock grazing throughout the planning 

area. One hundred and twenty-two allotments meet the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health. 

However, reduction or elimination of livestock grazing could become necessary in specific situations 

where livestock grazing causes or contributes to conflicts with the protection and/or management of other 

resource values or uses. Such determinations would be made during site-specific activity planning and 

associated environmental analysis. These determinations would be based on several factors, including 

monitoring studies, reviewing current range management science, obtaining input from livestock 

operators and interested parties, and assessing the ability to meet the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland 

Health. 

Closure to Oil and Gas Leasing 

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 (653,880 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. In addition, such closure contradicts BLM 

policy that, except for congressional withdrawals, public lands remain open and available for mineral 

exploration, unless doing otherwise is clearly in the national interest. 

Public scoping comments indicate a growing level of concern with the rate and scale of oil and gas 

leasing and development in the planning area. Making portions of the planning area unavailable for oil 
Chapter 2—Introduction Final EIS 

2-4 Pinedale RMP 

and gas leasing in response to other identified resource needs is addressed in the alternatives analyzed in 

detail. 

Proposed Enlarged Off-Highway Vehicle Open Area at Mount Airy 

A larger off-highway vehicle (OHV) open area (approximately 11,000 acres) was proposed in the Mount 

Airy/Stewart Point area of the Mesa. The proposed area would extend from the East Green River Road to 

the outskirts of Pinedale and from the Industrial Site to the top of the Mesa. The Mesa Road passes 

through the middle of the proposed area. 

Parts of the area would overlap with intensive oil and gas development of the Pinedale Anticline gas field, 

creating many hazards to cross-country OHV users. In addition, it is not prudent to add the impacts of 

unregulated OHV use in an area already being impacted by oil and gas development. BLM is proposing to 

manage portions of the larger OHV open area not contained within the Pinedale Anticline development to 

preserve big game migration routes, crucial winter range, sage-grouse habitats, and visual integrity from 

the town of Pinedale. For these reasons, BLM has determined that it is not reasonable to establish an area 

of unregulated OHV use in this area at this time. 

Reduced Pace of Oil and Gas Drilling 

Public scoping comments, and comments on the draft EIS, indicate a growing level of concern with the 

rate and scale of oil and gas leasing and development in the planning area. The pace of leasing is 

controlled through the 431,175 acres that would be unavailable for leasing. BLM considered an 

alternative to set or control the pace of oil and gas development but determined through a review of the 

federal regulations that the holders of federal oil and gas leases have the right to develop those leases; 

consequently, it was dropped from detailed analysis. 43 CFR §3160.1-2 states, “the lessee shall have the 

right to use so much of the leased lands as is necessary to explore for, drill for, mine, extract, and dispose 

of all the leased resource in a leasehold . . .” The 43 CFR §3160 regulations also require lessees to attain 

maximum economic recovery of the leased resource. The regulations also require leaseholders to conduct 

their operations in a manner that prevents undue and unnecessary impact. It is not possible at the RMP 

stage or even at the leasing stage to determine whether a lease would actually be developed, and if it is, 

what well spacing or level of development would be necessary to achieve the requisite maximum 

economic recovery of the oil and gas resource. Well spacing can vary from development area to 

development area. Some well fields can be efficiently developed on 1 well per square mile where other 

fields may require up to 128 wells per square mile. The pace of development would vary significantly 

between these scenarios. Pace of development, including reduced or limited rates of development, would 

be more appropriately projected and analyzed in project/field specific NEPA documents. 

Increases in seasonal restrictions for wildlife habitat protection would result in a slower development pace 

and are considered in Alternative 3. 

ACEC Proposals Not Considered for ACEC Status 

All decisions on ACEC proposals were based on the criteria found in Appendix 4. Refer to the Evaluation 

of Relevance and Importance Criteria for Existing and Proposed ACECs for details on all ACEC 

proposals. The identification of a potential ACEC does not, of itself, change or prevent change of the 

management or use of public lands. 

BLM reviewed the following ACEC proposals per existing criteria and determined that they would be 

better managed on a planning area-wide basis through specific mitigation and management actions. In 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Introduction 

Pinedale RMP 2-5 

some cases, more prescriptive mitigation would be appropriate. Management actions to protect the values 

described are included in the alternatives analyzed in detail. 

Beaver Creek Expansion Area, Rock Creek Expansion Area, North Cottonwood Creek, South 

Cottonwood Creek 

The Beaver Creek expansion area, including Trail Ridge, North Beaver, and South Beaver Creeks; the 

Rock Creek expansion area, including LaBarge Creek above the Rock Creek confluence; and the North 

and South Cottonwood Creek ACECs were proposed by cooperating agencies during the alternative 

development process. The proposal was intended to protect Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) and 

their habitat. The planning area’s only native trout species, CRCT, were once common in streams 

throughout the planning area and western Wyoming. These proposals met the relevance criteria for fish 

resources but did not meet the importance criteria to be considered as ACECs. 

LaBarge Elk Winter Range 

The LaBarge Elk Winter Range Area, which was proposed in scoping comments, was intended to limit 

the spread of disease in elk that winter on native range south of LaBarge Creek and as a control for the 

study of the spread of disease on elk feedgrounds in other parts of the planning area and elsewhere in 

western Wyoming. This proposal fails to meet the relevance and importance criteria (Appendix 4) to be 

considered as an ACEC. Management actions to protect elk winter range are included in the alternatives. 

The Mesa 

The Mesa area, approximately 340,000 acres, was proposed for ACEC consideration by cooperating 

agencies during the alternative formulation process. This area provides crucial winter range for a large 

population of mule deer and is the migration route to crucial winter ranges further south for pronghorn. 

The big game migrations that pass through this area twice annually are some of the largest and longest in 

the world. The Mesa provides lekking, nesting, and brood-rearing habitat for the greater sage-grouse. 

Western Wyoming encompasses the largest remaining populations and most intact habitat for the greater 

sage-grouse in the western United States. The Mesa meets the relevance criteria for fish and wildlife 

values but fails to meet the importance criteria for consideration for ACEC status (Appendix 4). 

Miller Mountain 

Miller Mountain was identified by the BLM planning team for ACEC consideration. The Miller Mountain 

area meets the relevance criteria for fish and wildlife resources, rare plants and plant communities, 

cultural resources in select locales within Miller Mountain and Fort Hill, and unstable soils prone to 

landslides. The area failed to meet the importance criteria. Its characteristics can be managed without 

ACEC status (Appendix 4). 

Muddy Creek 

The Muddy Creek area was identified by the BLM planning team as a potential ACEC. Although the area 

has a high density of archeological sites, it is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP). The Muddy Creek area possesses unique riparian habitat, with a concentration of springs 

and a large area of subirrigated desert riparian habitat not typical in the planning area. The area also 

provides crucial elk winter range to one of two elk populations in the planning area that winter on native 

range; however, these elk have access to the Bench Corral feedground and are not dependent on this 

winter range. Muddy Creek was determined not to meet the relevance and importance criteria for ACEC 

establishment (Appendix 4) because similar habitats and values can be found in other areas of Wyoming 

and the West. 
Chapter 2—Introduction Final EIS 

2-6 Pinedale RMP 

Wind River Front 

The Wind River Front area (243,040 acres) was identified by the BLM planning team and was also 

proposed by cooperating agencies for ACEC consideration during the alternative formulation process. 

The area provides winter and transitional ranges and migration routes; contains migration bottlenecks for 

mule deer, pronghorn, elk, and moose; and has a lek, nesting, and brood-rearing habitat for greater sagegrouse. The big game migrations that pass through this area twice annually are some of the largest and 

longest in the world. A well-defined mule deer migration route follows the base of the Wind River 

Mountains from the upper Green River area to crucial winter range in the Big Sandy area of the Rock 

Springs Field Office. The Wind River Front area meets the relevance criteria for historic, 

geologic/geomorphic, recreational, fish and wildlife, and natural processes values but fails to meet the 

importance criteria for consideration for ACEC status (Appendix 4). The Wind River Front area is 

considered as a management area in Alternatives 3 and 4. 

Wyoming Range Front 

The Wyoming Range Front area was proposed for ACEC consideration by cooperating agencies during 

the alternative formulation process. The area provides transitional range for elk, mule deer, and 

pronghorn, as well as lek, nesting, and brood-rearing habitat for greater sage-grouse. The Wyoming 

Range Front area meets the relevance criteria for fish and wildlife values but fails to meet the importance 

criteria for consideration for ACEC status (Appendix 4). Management actions to protect resources in the 

Wyoming Range, as well as the remainder of the planning area, are included in the alternatives. 

5 Miles Either Side of the Green River 

A proposal to establish an ACEC within 5 miles either side of the Green River was received as a public 

comment on the draft EIS. A large portion of this area is part of the Upper Green River Special 

Recreation Management Area (SRMA) and was considered for ACEC status in Alternative 3. The 

proposal was unclear whether areas south of Warren Bridge should be included in the proposed ACEC. 

The planning team assessed resource values in the general area of the river. This area does not meet the 

importance criteria for ACEC establishment. 

Boulder Lake 

The Boulder Lake ACEC was proposed in public comments on the draft EIS. No boundary was proposed 

for the area. Values in the Boulder Lake area are being addressed with a Cultural Resource Management 

Plan and designation as a SRMA. The area does not meet the importance criteria for ACEC 

establishment. 

Sage-Grouse Winter Concentration Areas 

An ACEC in sage-grouse winter concentration areas was proposed in public comments on the draft EIS. 

Winter concentration areas are an important link in sage-grouse habitats for year-round survival. Some 

scientists feel that winter habitats might be a limiting factor in sage-grouse populations. Mapping of sagegrouse winter concentration areas is ongoing. Protections for sage-grouse winter concentration areas are 

provided in management actions, including seasonal restrictions and limits on surface disturbance in these 

areas. 

Soap Holes 

The Soap Holes contain a rare combination of hydrology, soils and geomorphology, leading to an area 

with sinkholes and quicksand-type areas that are hazardous to people and animals. The Soap Holes ACEC 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Introduction 

Pinedale RMP 2-7 

was proposed in a public comment on the draft EIS. It is not necessary to establish an ACEC to provide 

appropriate management of the area. The Soap Holes area will be managed through OHV restrictions in 

subsequent travel management planning to limit public access to designated roads. Some areas could be 

seasonally closed due to poor road conditions and public hazard. 

Tip Top Watershed 

An ACEC in the Tip Top watershed was proposed in a public comment on the draft EIS. This is one of 

the few areas in the planning area containing Cretaceous limestone outcroppings with paleontological 

resource potential. Steep slopes and soils of the Wasatch formation make the area susceptible to slumping 

and landslides. Soil erosion that was occurring in the 1980s was addressed with site stabilization and 

reclamation. The Tip Top area fails to meet the importance criteria for establishment as an ACEC. 

Critical Watersheds and Recharge Areas for the Towns of Big Piney, Marbleton, and LaBarge 

A member of the public proposed establishing an ACEC to cover critical watersheds and recharge areas 

for the towns of Big Piney, Marbleton, and LaBarge. Groundwater recharge is important in maintaining 

aquifers and water availability for municipal and other uses. It would not be appropriate to protect only 

certain watersheds and groundwater recharge areas. Neither would it be appropriate to establish ACECs 

for protecting watersheds and groundwater recharge throughout the entire planning area. Watersheds and 

groundwater resources are protected in the RMP with surface management restrictions and development 

requirements, including use of surface casing, handling of hazardous materials, and other restrictions. 
Chapter 2—Common to All Alternatives Final EIS 

2-8 Pinedale RMP 

2.3 MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

This section describes proposed management guidance that would apply to all alternatives. Management 

actions might not vary by alternative for several reasons. In some cases, the decisions from the existing 

RMP are still appropriate to meet the goals for management of the public lands, and were not raised as 

issues during the scoping process or analysis of the management situation. Where management actions 

from the existing RMP are meeting management goals without causing undue environmental impacts, 

alternatives to acceptable management actions or direction are unnecessary. Specific limitations on 

management of resources and land use programs also guided development of the management 

alternatives. These limitations are defined in various laws and regulations that govern BLM management 

decisions. They are also set forth in the planning criteria (Section 1.4.2) to ensure that management 

actions in all alternatives comply with nondiscretionary laws and regulations. In some cases, these laws 

and regulations limit management options to either implementing or not implementing an action. 

As conditions, law, and policy change over time or new data are collected, the RMP would be updated 

through maintenance actions or amendments, as appropriate, to ensure management decisions reflect 

those changes. 

An implementation plan will be developed after approval of the ROD for this RMP. The implementation 

plan will address monitoring, mitigation, projects, and activities to achieve the goals and objectives of the 

RMP. 

2.3.1 Air Quality Management 

The State of Wyoming has primacy with regard to air quality. Adhering to Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ) standards is required by law. Air quality standards are maintained by the 

State of Wyoming, which determines the necessity of regulating emissions. When necessary, the state 

regulates emissions through its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality by promulgating the 

appropriate rule. 

BLM would cooperate with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Wyoming and 

collaborate with the United States Forest Service (USFS) in monitoring for atmospheric deposition (acid 

rain) and its impacts on the Class I airsheds of the Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas. 

BLM would collaborate in the operation of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program 

(NADP)/National Trends Network acid rain monitoring site. Data collected from the NADP/National 

Trends Monitoring site would be used to determine actual or potential impacts from air pollutant 

emissions and to provide information on proposed emission sources. 

BLM would cooperate in the collection of basic climate and meteorological data from remote automatic 

weather stations. 

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. 

In all cases, however, BLM would take those actions necessary to ensure that violation of the Clean Air 

Act does not occur. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Common to All Alternatives 

Pinedale RMP 2-9 

2.3.2 Cultural Resources Management 

Sites and trails would be allocated to uses based on their natural and relative preservation value. The 

allocation process would include collaborating with state and local governments and government-togovernment consultation with Native American tribes, where appropriate. 

Potential effects on cultural resources would be managed, to the extent possible, through avoidance and 

confidentiality of location (Appendix 1). Where avoidance is not feasible or prudent, mitigation through 

data recovery, monitoring, or other data collection would be required. Before allowing for or permitting 

any surface disturbing activities, the appropriate level of cultural resource inventory would be performed 

to identify presence of cultural resources. Should a significant (NRHP eligible) cultural property is 

discovered, the area would be avoided if possible. Where avoidance is not possible, data recovery 

activities would be pursued as necessary. 

Sites or locales considered sacred, sensitive, or of interest to modern Native Americans would be 

identified. If actions were proposed that would impact these properties or Native American use of them, 

consultation with affected tribal interests would occur. The input received from affected tribal groups 

would be considered before any irretrievable or irrevocable decisions are made. 

Programmatic agreements (PA) for managing cultural resources, such as the Lander Trail PA and the 

Jonah PA, would continue to apply. As per the NHPA (in Section 106), BLM would consider the 

potential effects of agency actions on properties listed on or eligible for the NRHP. 

BLM, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and other Historic Trail partners, would 

identify contributing segments of national historic trails that are appropriate for preservation of their 

historic values, including setting. Appropriateness would be determined by factors such as existing 

intrusions to setting, landownership along the contributing segment, other resource values present, and 

any factors that would constrain BLM’s ability to manage a segment of National Historic Trail for 

preservation. The State Protocol would be modified by an addendum describing the agreed-upon process 

and mitigation measures.

2.3.3 Forestry 

The guidance of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) would be followed for all old 

growth stands (Appendix 6), improvement and treatment of forest stands, and collaboration with local 

governments for fire suppression as identified by the Act. All forest and woodland stands would be 

analyzed for old growth characteristics prior to entry. Stands meeting old growth standards for their 

vegetation type would be managed to maintain and/or restore old growth characteristics of presuppression composition, structure, and function on a landscape scale. 

Public demand sales for firewood, Christmas trees, posts and poles, and other forest products would 

continue. The actual number of permits issued and estimated volumes would vary yearly based on public 

demand, which is increasing as the population of the area grows, but would not exceed the capability of 

the resource to maintain healthy forests and sustained yield. Should demand exceed historical use levels, a 

NEPA analysis would be prepared to analyze impacts to other resources. 

All SRMAs, ACECs, and wilderness study areas (WSA) would be unavailable for commercial or 

personal use forest products removal (incidental use as defined by 43 CFR, Subpart 5400, Section 5400.0-

5 is excepted). The only forest/woodland treatments allowed would be to reduce fire or safety hazards in 

designated campgrounds or to address serious forest health issues in accordance with management 

direction. 
Chapter 2—Common to All Alternatives Final EIS 

2-10 Pinedale RMP 

2.3.4 Lands and Realty Management 

Withdrawals 

Public lands within active livestock driveways that serve their designated purpose would continue to be 

segregated from all forms of disposal under the public land laws. Withdrawals for stock driveways that 

are not serving their designated purpose would be terminated. Mineral location on stock driveways would 

be processed under 43 CFR §3815. 

Existing land withdrawals currently encumbering public lands would be reviewed to determine the need 

for continuation, modification, revocation, or termination of the withdrawals. Unneeded withdrawals 

would not be continued. These include power site, oil shale, and other miscellaneous withdrawals. 

Rights of Way 

Areas not identified as avoidance, exclusion, or restriction areas would be open to rights of way (ROW). 

ROW facilities would not be placed adjacent to each other if issues with safety or incompatibility are 

identified. All utilities would be placed so as to meet reliability and safety standards. 

ROWs would be issued for the minimum size necessary to complete the intended use and would be 

clustered or corridored as much as possible. 

ROW activities that would typically require an exception during seasonal closure periods would be road 

construction or improvement, and pipeline, powerline, and communication site construction. Activities 

that would be permissible during seasonal closure periods without requiring an exception would include 

daily operations, emergency, or nonstandard maintenance. These activities would be permissible if 

operations are confined to an existing ROW, require no longer than 72 hours to complete, are conducted 

during daylight hours only, and involve no new surface disturbance. 

Classification of Lands for Disposal 

Lands identified for disposal under Sections 203 and 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and identified as such in this plan are hereby classified for disposal under Section 

7 of the Taylor Gazing Act of 1934, as amended (43 USC 315f) under Executive Order (EO) 6910 and 

under 43 CFR §2400. 

2.3.5 Livestock Grazing Management 

The Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health 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. BLM would consult, cooperate, and coordinate with operators and interested 

members of the public to determine the most appropriate guidelines to implement. 

Grazing Preference. Forage would be made available for livestock grazing use. 

Stock Trails. Adequate stock trails would be maintained to support livestock trailing needs. 

Allotment Management Plans and Categorization. All allotments are currently categorized. As 

resource conditions change, and following consultation with the affected parties, an allotment could 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Common to All Alternatives 

Pinedale RMP 2-11 

change from one category to another. Current allotment categorization is 40 I allotments, 147 M 

allotments, and 26 C allotments. 

Combining and Splitting Allotments. Any combining or splitting of allotments to meet management 

objectives would be consistent with RMP direction. Such actions would include consultation and 

coordination with the affected parties. 

Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation. Monitoring of the range and the vegetation resource would be 

conducted at a level sufficient to detect changes in grazing use, trend, and range conditions. Monitoring 

would be tied to land health standards and indicators that help determine change in status and progress 

toward meeting objectives. Data would be used to direct and support grazing management decisions 

consistent with national policy. 

Conversions in Kind. Conversions from one type of livestock to another would be evaluated on a caseby-case basis, including an environmental analysis, and would be authorized in conformance with the 

goals and objectives of the RMP. 

2.3.6 Minerals Management 

Mineral resources include fluid and solid minerals leased for development under the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920 and amendments, locatable minerals that may be claimed and patented under the 1872 Mining 

Law, and common variety mineral materials that may be purchased by private parties or used for free by 

public agencies and nonprofit groups under the Materials Act of 1947 (as amended). The preceding laws 

only apply to federal minerals and are not intended to suggest or give BLM jurisdiction over state- or 

privately-owned minerals. Drilling proposals are initiated by oil and gas leaseholders. Parcels are 

nominated for leasing by oil and gas companies, not by BLM or other agencies. 

Leasable Minerals 

Oil and Gas. 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. 

Nondiscretionary closures to oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development would apply to 

incorporated municipalities and WSAs. As provided by regulation, existing pre-FLPMA oil and gas 

leases are exempt from this restriction. 

BLM-permitted actions on split estate lands would be subject to the same stipulations as leased federal 

mineral estate on federal surface lands (Appendix 7) provided the stipulations do not adversely affect the 

surface owner’s land use or actions. Exceptions to surface development restrictions could be granted if 

requested or agreed to by the surface owner. 

The oil and gas resource inventory data of the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA) is integrated into 

the Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario, prepared by BLM’s Wyoming State Office 

Reservoir Management Group (RMG). The RFD predicts future mineral development within the planning 
Chapter 2—Common to All Alternatives Final EIS 

2-12 Pinedale RMP 

area. The RFD is a projection of the number of wells and well pads that could potentially be developed 

under the various alternatives. It is included in the RMP EIS 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 did not exceed the analysis thresholds. 

In compliance with EPCA, restrictions and impediments to mineral resource development have been 

analyzed throughout the planning process with the intent to: 

1. Clearly present mitigation requirements necessary to reduce impacts of oil and gas operations on 

other resources. 

2. 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. 

3. Provide means for evaluating and processing exceptions, modifications, and/or waivers to lease 

stipulations and COA attached to post-leasing authorizations, such as APDs and Sundry Notices. 

Modifications would be processed when there is a need for a fundamental change to the provisions of 

a lease stipulation or COA, either temporarily or for the term of the lease or use authorization. For 

example, a seasonal use restriction prohibits activity in October, but the protected resource period has 

shifted to August. Waivers (permanent exemption from the lease stipulation) would be processed 

when the condition warranting the stipulation or COA no longer exists anywhere within the leasehold 

or within the area of authorization for a COA. For example, an elk feedground is protected by a no 

surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation, but elk no longer come to that feedground. Modifications and 

waivers to lease stipulations may require RMP maintenance or an RMP amendment. An exception is 

a case-by-case, site-specific exemption from a lease stipulation or COA. See Appendix 8 for a 

discussion of the exception process. 

4. Onshore Order No. 1 and 43 CFR §3162 3-2 (a) (b) & (c) provide for subsequent well operations 

and when filing of a Sundry Notice (BLM form 3150-6) is required. 43 CFR §3161.2 directs the 

BLM to ensure that “all operations are conducted in a manner which protects other natural resources 

and the environmental quality.” 43 CFR §3162.2 (a) and §3162.5 require operators to “conduct all 

operations in a manner which protects other natural resources and the environmental quality.” 

Consistent with the regulatory requirement to protect other natural resources, the following actions 

would be permissible during seasonal closure periods without requiring an exception: (1) daily 

production operations, including pumper visit and pumper maintenance actions; (2) road maintenance 

and snow removal; (3) remedial workover operations immediately essential to maintaining well 

production; (4) workover, well logging, and operations that do not alter the well bore or casing 

providing the operations would be conducted during daylight hours and would not take more than 3 

work days to complete; and (5) regularly required production facility and pipeline maintenance (e.g., 

monthly, every 2 months, every 3 months) providing the operations would be conducted during 

daylight hours and would not take more than 3 workdays to complete. These activities would be 

restricted to existing well pads, access roads and/or pipeline ROWs, and involve no new surface 

disturbance. 

5. Evaluate the impacts of the COA and other mitigation on the economics of energy development 

and the access to domestic sources of energy to ensure that they are the minimum necessary. 

Clarifying changes could be made in the future to the wording of oil and gas lease stipulations as long as 

there is no substantial change to the protection provided by mitigation and the clarification does not place 

additional restrictions on the leaseholder. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Common to All Alternatives 

Pinedale RMP 2-13 

Locatable Minerals 

According to 43 CFR §3809.11 and §3809.21, only exploration activities of 5 acres or less would be 

allowed with only a notice. Exploration over 5 acres, all activities in ACECs regardless of acreage, and all 

mining operations regardless of acreage would require approved Plans of Operation. 

Salable Minerals 

Regular field monitoring of salable mineral permit areas would occur to ensure permit compliance. 

Oil Shale 

All decisions related to oil shale leasing in this RMP are being deferred to the forthcoming Programmatic 

EIS (PEIS) on Oil Shale and Tar Sands Leasing being prepared by BLM (project website: 

ostseis.anl.gov). The ROD on the final PEIS will amend this RMP by making decisions on whether to 

allow leasing and future development of oil shale on public lands where the resource is present. 

Additional opportunities for public comment have occurred throughout the PEIS process. The public 

comment period for the draft PEIS was open through April 21, 2008. 

2.3.7 Paleontology and Natural History 

Paleontological sites would be protected by using surface and subsurface protection stipulations and 

discretionary management authority. Any actions to close or restrict areas for fossil protection would be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Permits are required for collecting all vertebrate fossils, tracks, and 

traces, and any invertebrate and plant fossils that are determined to be significant. 

2.3.8 Recreation and Visitor Services Management 

Recreation facilities would be developed, where needed, to accommodate anticipated recreation uses and 

use levels and to provide for adequate public health and safety and resource protection according to 

subsequent SRMA activity plans. 

The order of priority for recreation management would be (1) congressionally designated areas; (2) major 

rivers and lakes where BLM has clear jurisdiction; (3) areas with outstanding recreation resource values 

not already provided in the area; and (4) areas where the recreation capacity is regularly exceeded, 

threatening other important resource values. 

A temporary, no overnight camping stipulation could be imposed anywhere in the planning area in an 

emergency. 

Where applicable, recreation facilities development and management would maintain or improve riparian 

values. 

Recreational use would be directed through the use of signs and publications to address trespass issues. 

BLM would work cooperatively with private property owners to sign common boundaries. 

Commercial, competitive, or organized group activity or event special recreation permits (SRP) would not 

be authorized for prairie dog hunts, contests, derbies, or other organized prairie dog hunting events. 

BLM would enter into partnerships with interested parties to further the goals of the recreation and visitor 

services program. 
Chapter 2—Common to All Alternatives Final EIS 

2-14 Pinedale RMP 

2.3.9 Vegetation Management 

Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species. The appropriate type and level of 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

would occur for agency actions that may affect endangered, threatened, and proposed species or their 

designated or proposed critical habitat. USFWS technical advice would be sought on candidate species. 

The Statewide Programmatic Biological Assessments and Biological Opinions for each species, including 

reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions, would be implemented. Surveys for 

endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species on BLM-administered public lands and mineral 

estate would occur before any federally authorized project or activity is approved. If threatened and 

endangered (T&E) or proposed species or their habitats are found in the area, consultation with the 

USFWS would be initiated, and activities would be curtailed until concurrence is reached between BLM, 

USFWS, and the operator on what activities can be authorized under what terms and conditions. 

Federal oil and gas leases or other areas could now, or hereafter, contain plants, animals, or their habitats 

determined to be threatened, endangered, or proposed or candidates for listing as threatened or 

endangered. The BLM would recommend modifications to exploration and development proposals to 

change BLM-approved activities that contribute to the need to list a species or its habitat. The BLM could 

require modifications to or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the 

continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or that results in the 

destruction or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. The BLM would not 

approve any activity (ground-disturbing or otherwise) that may affect any such species or critical habitat 

until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the ESA as amended, 16 USC §1531 et 

seq., including completing any required procedure for conference or consultation. 

BLM would comply with the terms of the biological assessments and biological opinions for management 

of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species. 

Deviation from the restrictions listed in this section for any listed species would require additional sitespecific consultation with the USFWS. 

2.3.10 Visual Resources Management 

Projects of all types within established visual resource management (VRM) class areas would be required 

to conform to the objectives and characteristics of the VRM classification. 

BLM would work with project applicants to minimize project visual contrast regardless of VRM class. 

2.3.11 Watershed and Water Quality (Surface Water and 

Groundwater) Management 

The State of Wyoming has primacy with regard to water quality. Adhering to WDEQ standards is 

required by law. Water quality standards, enforcement, and remediation are the primacy of and 

administered by the State of Wyoming. 

All actions would comply with EO 11988, Floodplain Management, and EO 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands, and the WDEQ water quality standards, applicable regulations, and permitting requirements, 

including stormwater and other Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES) permits. 

BLM actions and authorizations would conform to WDEQ requirements. In all cases, however, BLM 

would take those actions necessary to ensure that violation of the Clean Water Act does not occur. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Common to All Alternatives 

Pinedale RMP 2-15 

Consistent with WDEQ and EPA requirements, Hazardous Spill Response Plans would be required for all 

projects involving hazardous materials. Spills and releases of chemicals, petroleum products, and 

produced water would be reported to WDEQ. 

Water injection wells for the disposal of produced water would be permitted on a case-by-case basis. 

Class 1 waters of the state would be protected under state antidegradation regulations. 

2.3.12 Wild Horses Management 

Management actions were implemented in the 1988 Pinedale RMP to resolve conflicts for water and 

forage between wild horses and other consumptive users. The decision was made to not manage the 

Desert and LaBarge herd areas (HA) as herd management areas (HMA). These wild horse HAs (Map 2-5) 

would not be used by wild horses but would be retained in accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse 

and Burro Act of 1971. 

Consistent with the consent decree in State of Wyoming v. Department of the Interior, removal of horses 

that reenter the Desert and LaBarge HAs would be conducted. 

2.3.13 Wildland Fire and Fuels Management 

Fire and fuels management actions would comply with Wyoming Air Quality State Regulations Chapter 

10, Smoke Management requirements. 

The 2004 Southwestern Wyoming BLM Fire Plan would support and implement the wildland fire and 

fuels management objectives of this plan. 

2.3.14 Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management 

Special Status Species Management 

The purpose of BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management, is to provide policy and 

guidance, consistent with appropriate laws, for the conservation of Special Status Species of plants and 

animals, and the ecosystem upon which they depend. These species are proposed for listing, officially 

listed as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the 

provisions of the 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 of Special Status Species means using all methods and procedures that 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. The objectives of the Special Status Species policy are to (A) 

conserve listed species and the ecosystems on which they depend and (B) ensure that actions requiring 

BLM authorization or approval are consistent with the conservation needs of Special Status Species and 

do not contribute to the need to list any Special Status Species, either under provisions of the ESA or 

other provisions of this policy.

Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species. The appropriate type and level of ESA 

Section 7 consultation with the USFWS would occur for agency actions that may affect endangered, 

threatened, and proposed species or their designated or proposed critical habitat (Appendix 9). USFWS 

technical advice would be sought on candidate species.. The Statewide Programmatic Biological 

Assessments and Biological Opinions for each species, including reasonable and prudent measures and 
Chapter 2—Common to All Alternatives Final EIS 

2-16 Pinedale RMP 

terms and conditions, would be implemented. Surveys for endangered, threatened, proposed, and 

candidate species on BLM-administered public lands and mineral estate would occur before any federally 

authorized project or activity is approved. If T&E or proposed species or their habitat are found in the 

area, consultation with the USFWS would be initiated, and activities would be curtailed until concurrence 

is reached between BLM, USFWS, and the operator on what activities can be authorized. 

Federal oil and gas leases or other areas could now, or hereafter, contain plants, animals, or their habitats 

determined to be threatened, endangered, or proposed, or candidates for listing as threatened or 

endangered. The BLM would recommend modifications to exploration and development proposals to 

change BLM-approved activities that contribute to the need to list a species or its habitat. The BLM could 

require modifications to or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the 

continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. The BLM would not approve any 

activity (ground-disturbing or otherwise) that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it 

completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the ESA as amended, 16 USC 1531 et seq., 

including completion of any required procedure for conference or consultation. 

BLM would comply with the terms of the biological assessments and biological opinions for management 

of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species. 

Deviation from the restrictions listed in this section for any listed species would require additional sitespecific consultation with the USFWS. 

2.3.15 Special Designations and Management Areas 

SRMAs are discussed under the Recreation and Visitor Services sections. 

Management plans would be written for all ACECs as needed. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The Lake Mountain (13,490 acres) and Scab Creek (7,710 acres) WSAs would be retained. WSAs would 

be managed under the “Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review” 

(United States Department of Interior [USDI] 1995). Congressional decisions on the Lake Mountain and 

Scab Creek WSAs would be incorporated into the Pinedale RMP when made. In accordance with the 

Interim Management Policy, WSAs would be closed to mineral leasing. 

Discretionary uses within or adjacent to WSAs would be reviewed to ensure they do not create conflicts 

with management and preservation of wilderness values. 

The Scab Creek WSA would be closed to OHV use. 

If necessary, in the course of incorporating Congress’ wilderness designation decisions into the RMP, the 

RMP would be amended. 

2.3.16 Offsite Mitigation 

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 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Common to All Alternatives 

Pinedale RMP 2-17 

agencies. The need for offsite mitigation will be determined in conformance with current BLM policy, as 

updated. 

An example of an instance where offsite mitigation could be used would be oil and gas field 

developments where offsite mitigation activities to address loss of habitat effectiveness would help BLM 

achieve the goals and objectives of the applicable RMP, given the impacts to wildlife habitats at the site 

of development and the anticipated effects of reclamation, best management practices (BMP), and onsite 

mitigation measures. Offsite mitigation could also include the implementation of mitigation measures for 

socioeconomic impacts, or impacts to livestock grazing permittees due to industrial development of 

grazing allotments. 

The order of use of mitigation methods from most to least preferred would be as follows: 

• Onsite mitigation directly resolving impacts created by the action 

• Offsite mitigation to the resources affected by the action that cannot be resolved onsite 

• Offsite mitigation to similar or related resources affected by the action that cannot be resolved 

onsite. 

The following stipulations would apply to offsite mitigation measures: 

• Offsite mitigation would be used as a last choice when developing mitigation measures. 

• Offsite mitigation proposals would describe the replacement or substitution activities or methods 

that would be used to address potential impacts to specific resources or environments or both. 

• Offsite mitigation must be as close to “in-kind” in replacement or substitution of resources, 

habitat function, or environments as practicable (e.g., elk habitat for elk habitat, historical 

properties for historical properties). 

• Offsite mitigation practices must last as long as the impacts are expected to occur. 

• Offsite mitigation practices are to be developed, conducted, or performed, and funded by the 

project proponent. 

• Offsite mitigation activities must be conducted subject to BLM review and approval that the 

mitigation will actually address the impacts occurring on the public lands. 

The priority order for mitigating resource impacts onsite or offsite will be— 

• Onsite Mitigation – Onsite (avoid, minimize, rectify, or reduce in time) 

• Offsite Mitigation – Local (unless greater resource benefits can be achieved through Regional or 

Interstate mitigation) 

• Offsite Mitigation – Regional (unless greater resource benefits can be achieved through Interstate 

mitigation) 

• Offsite Mitigation – Interstate 

• The preferred area for conducting offsite mitigation would be as near (local offsite mitigation) to 

the project or impacted area as possible or as scientific information and impact analysis suggests. 
Chapter 2—Common to All Alternatives Final EIS 

2-18 Pinedale RMP 

2.3.17 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Activity Plan Working 

Groups 

Management actions identified for the Pinedale RMP planning area are based on studies and the best 

scientific information currently available. However, conditions could change during the life of the RMP. 

Implemented management actions could be improved as new technology and new information become 

available. It is also possible that changes in land use would require a different management action to 

protect the resources. To address changing conditions and provide management flexibility that uses 

BMPs, PFO would use a monitoring and evaluation strategy. 

A monitoring and evaluation strategy would apply to all activities that occur throughout the planning area. 

Reasons for adopting a monitoring and evaluation strategy approach to decisionmaking include (1) 

enhancing the ability to achieve plan goals; (2) getting the most out of the NEPA/planning process; (3) 

providing plan flexibility; and (4) validating impact predictions, ensuring mitigation is effective, and 

being able to adapt for unintended consequences. Monitoring and evaluation management policies and 

procedures should enhance the ability to achieve management goals. 

This process measures the effectiveness of existing actions through monitoring and application of new 

scientific research. It analyzes current resource conditions resulting from implemented actions and 

identifies and recommends alternatives or modified actions as necessary to reach established goals. This 

process provides the optimum means to check the effectiveness of management actions. Because the 

capability to conduct the process at the optimum level can vary from year to year, monitoring would be 

prioritized. Appendix 11 presents a description of the monitoring and evaluation strategy to be 

implemented. 

Activity Plan Working Groups 

RMP decisions establish goals, objectives, and management actions for activities on public lands. 

Standards or BMPs are identified in land use plans. Activity-level actions include implementation plans 

and analyses such as allotment or habitat management plans, oil and gas field development plans, 

recreation management plans, and coordinated activity plans. These activity-level plans analyze the need 

to modify existing decisions and practices in light of proposed or projected resource use or activity. 

Activity Plan Working Groups (APWG) consisting of local, state, and federal governments would be 

formed when circumstances dictate. APWGs would be formed only for new projects. Cooperating 

agencies in these working groups would assist BLM in preparing environmental analyses for activitylevel actions or modifications to current plans. BLM or potential cooperating agencies could identify the 

need for activity planning and the associated APWG formation. This approach is similar to the process 

used by BLM and its cooperating agencies to develop this land use plan. 

Chapter 4 of the Pinedale RMP EIS analyzes the impacts associated with each of the alternatives 

considered. This analysis includes an estimate of the social and economic impacts that are anticipated as a 

result of the alternatives considered. It may also provide a suitable starting point for local governments to 

use in local planning efforts. 

Further, BLM anticipates that site-specific implementation or project analysis will occur in accordance 

with governing law and regulations as the RMP allocation decisions are implemented. This analysis 

process will provide an opportunity for the BLM, State of Wyoming, and the affected counties and 

communities to collaborate in disclosing the socioeconomic impacts associated with the site-specific 

action being analyzed. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Common to All Alternatives 

Pinedale RMP 2-19 

BLM PFO acknowledges that state and local governments may collect or develop more refined social and 

economic data and that local plans may be developed by the impacted counties, municipalities or 

communities that attempt to address social and economic matters affecting them. This planning effort by 

local governments may address some or all of the social and governmental services within its purview, 

and may contain the detailed budgetary requirements necessary to carry the plan forward. 

The objectives of APWGs would include— 

• Minimizing analysis and decisionmaking controversy by being proactive rather than reactive to 

public land use and resource conflicts 

• Providing effective and cost-efficient, collaboratively based mitigation of resource conflicts 

• Improving resource conditions by recommending practices and mitigation measures appropriate 

to special situations 

• Streamlining public land authorizations, increasing implementation flexibility, and notifying 

public land users of required practices. 

BLM would meet with potential cooperating agencies before scoping for major activity plans or RMP 

amendments to establish the level and extent of the APWGs’ activity. Examples would include— 

• OHV use escalating to a significant issue 

• Impact level approaching that documented in the impact analyses made from reasonably 

foreseeable actions in an RMP or previous activity plan analysis 

• Proposals for oil and gas surface location densities or acres disturbed above a certain amount per 

unit area 

• Identification of the need to prepare a recreation area management plan (RAMP) 

• A need to prepare a wildlife habitat management plan and habitat mitigation plan 

• Formulation of a travel management plan 

• Resolution of resource use conflicts, such as for livestock grazing and other uses. 

Examples of resource locations or management situations where activity or use could trigger working 

group formation include— 

• Instances where crucial or important wildlife habitats overlap areas of high potential for surface 

disturbance. For example, where crucial deer winter range or other important habitats and high 

intensity oil and gas development areas overlap. 

• Wildland urban interfaces (WUI). 

• Instances where two or more resources of interest to cooperating agencies are in conflict. For 

example, significant surface disturbance in identified habitats for T&E or State Sensitive Species 

or livestock grazing allotment. 

When an APWG is convened, objectives for the first meeting would include— 

• Establishing working group membership and organization. Existing examples that may be used 

include the Continental Divide/Wamsutter II Wildlife Protection Plan (ROD, page 15, and 
Chapter 2—Common to All Alternatives Final EIS 

2-20 Pinedale RMP 

Appendix D, May 2000) or the Powder River Basin Interagency Work Groups (ROD, page 11, 

April 2003). 

• Identifying issues, practices, and management actions the working group will address. 

• Establishing mechanisms and processes for communicating recommendations to the BLM. 

• Identifying public involvement and notification needs associated with working group activities. 

Other attributes and functions of APWGs would include— 

• APWGs will be specific to the activity plan. 

• APWGs will provide suggestions and recommendations for studies and development of 

monitoring protocols to evaluate mitigation, reclamation, and habitat management practices to the 

BLM. Examples of these topics would include offsite mitigation and a mitigation account, in 

addition to specific practices. 

• APWGs will serve in an advisory capacity only. BLM cannot relinquish its decisionmaking 

authority or responsibility. 

2.3.18 Requirements for Further Environmental Analysis 

This EIS is a programmatic statement describing the impacts of implementing the proposed land use plan 

decisions and associated management actions described for the planning area. 

Land use plan decisions that are implemented upon approval of the RMP do not require any further 

environmental analysis or documentation until modified through an RMP amendment or revision. 

Whenever implementation level plans (e.g., ACEC Management Plans) are prepared, additional 

environmental analysis and documentation would be required. Individual management actions or projects 

requiring additional site-specific project planning, as funding becomes available, would require further 

environmental analysis. 

Site-specific environmental analyses and documentation (including the use of categorical exclusions and 

determinations of NEPA adequacy where appropriate) may be prepared for one or more individual 

projects in accordance with management objectives and decisions established in the approved land use 

plan. In addition, BLM would ensure that the environmental review process includes evaluation of all 

critical elements, including cultural resources and threatened and endangered species, and completes 

required USFWS Section 7 consultations and coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) in accordance with the BLM Cultural Resources National Programmatic Agreement and 

Wyoming BLM-SHPO protocols. 

Interdisciplinary impact analysis will be based on this EIS and other applicable EISs. If the analysis 

prepared for site-specific projects finds potential for significant impacts not already described in an 

existing EIS, another EIS or a supplement to an existing EIS may be warranted. 

Upon providing public notice of a decision, supporting environmental documentation would be sent to all 

affected interests and made available to other publics on request. Decisions to approve implementationlevel plans or to implement site-specific projects are subject to administrative review at the time such 

decisions are made. 

The BLM would require project-specific analysis of environmental impacts associated with future energy 

development projects. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative Summaries 

Pinedale RMP 2-21 

2.4 SUMMARIES OF THE ALTERNATIVES

2.4.1 Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

Alternative 1 maintains the current management goals, objectives, and direction, as specified in the 1988 

Pinedale RMP ROD. 

Minerals 

Alternative 1 would make available approximately 1,026,780 acres for oil and gas leasing and 

development (Table 2-32 shows the number of acres of BLM mineral estate that is subject to leasing 

restrictions for conventional oil and gas exploration and development. The acreage values provided in the 

table are organized by the type and level of restriction and mineral potential. 

Table 2-32, p. 2-169). No areas would be administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing for 

protection of wildlife habitats. Timing and distance mitigation would be applied to protect sage-grouse 

(Map 2-6), raptors, and big game and their habitats. Additionally, 14,540 acres would be proposed for 

withdrawal from locatable mineral entry and land disposal. 

Other Resources 

The current permitted animal unit months (AUM) for livestock grazing (107,907 AUMs) would be 

maintained unless monitoring indicates a need for adjustment. The Desert General Use area (237,360 

acres) would be open to OHV use without restrictions. The Upper Green River, Boulder Lake, and Scab 

Creek SRMAs would be retained. No coordinated, area-wide transportation planning would be conducted. 

Access across private lands would be pursued, as needed, through a variety of methods, including but not 

limited to the purchase of ROW or easements, land exchange, reciprocal ROW, and other statutory 

authorities. 

Under Alternative 1, approximately 641,140 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV; 187,070 acres 

would be managed as VRM Class III; 73,430 acres would be managed as VRM Class II; and 21,290 acres 

would be managed as VRM Class I. Management actions would emphasize the reduction of soil erosion 

and sediment and salinity contributions to the Green River Basin water system. An activity plan for 

reducing erosion and channel degradation would be prepared for the Tip Top watershed. A 

watershed/recreation plan would be prepared for the Stewart Point-Mount Airy area to reduce 

sedimentation while still allowing OHV use. T&E species and their habitats would be protected. Actions 

determined to degrade habitats to a point of jeopardizing the continued existence of a T&E species would 

not be allowed. Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and sage-grouse use patterns would be monitored. High 

priority would be given to improving wildlife habitat through vegetation manipulation. 

Surface disturbance restrictions included in the 1988 RMP ROD for protecting cultural, visual, 

vegetation, wildlife, soils, and other resources would continue to be implemented. Examples are 

restrictions on development on steep slopes, protections for significant cultural sites, and restrictions on 

disturbance on or near sage-grouse and raptor nesting areas. 

Special Designations and Management Areas 

The Rock Creek and Beaver Creek ACECs (8,860 acres) would be retained under their current 

management. 
Chapter 2—Alternative Summaries Final EIS 

2-22 Pinedale RMP 

The Lake Mountain (13,490 acres) and Scab Creek (7,710 acres) WSAs would be retained. WSAs would 

be managed under the “Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review” 

(USDI 1995). 

2.4.2 Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 is designed to evaluate the impacts of maximizing the production of oil and gas resources 

while providing an adequate level of environmental protection for other resources. Objectives and 

standards would provide the minimum protection for all natural resources from impacts of oil and gas 

activities. Appendix 3 presents the mitigation guidelines and standards that provide requirements, 

consultation, guidance, and limitations on all aspects of oil and gas related activities. 

Minerals 

Alternative 2 would make available approximately 1,177,530 acres for oil and gas leasing and 

development Table 2-32, p. 2-169). The entire planning area would be open to oil and gas leasing and 

development except for WSAs (21,200 acres) and the Trapper’s Point ACEC (550 acres). The planning 

area would be divided into three areas for management of oil and gas leasing and development (Map 2-7). 

Intensively Developed Fields would be managed for intensive oil and gas activities while protecting 

wildlife habitats to the extent practicable. Traditional Leasing Areas would be managed for protection of 

important values during oil and gas exploration, but would provide opportunity for oil and gas 

development activities. Unavailable Areas would be managed for protection of wildlife habitats through 

indefinitely postponing the availability of lands for oil and gas leasing. The planning area would be open 

to geophysical exploration and operations except where prohibited by law. Specific timing and distance 

mitigation would be applied for wildlife habitat protection only to the extent required by law (for 

example, for T&E species protection) (Appendix 12). Transportation planning would facilitate and 

designate access to the public lands. Sensitive aquatic species habitats would be maintained. 

Other Resources 

In Alternative 2, the integrity of the visual setting of national historic trails would be protected by 

prohibiting surface occupancy within one-quarter mile of the trails. Permitted AUMs for livestock grazing 

would be increased from 107,907 to 157,308 by activating suspended nonuse AUMs (Table A20-1). 

Alternative 2 would limit OHV use in the Desert General Use area to existing roads and trails. No 

RAMPs would be completed and no new SRMAs would be established in this alternative. Vegetation 

would be managed to support wildlife habitat and livestock grazing needs, control soil erosion and 

provide riparian stability, control noxious weeds, and protect Special Status Species. Under Alternative 2, 

the number of acres in VRM Class IV would be increased to 717,390 acres; the number of acres in Class 

II would be increased to 87,150; and the area in Class III would be reduced to 118,390 acres. There would 

be no VRM Class I areas. Discharge of produced waters to streams or other non-isolated surface features 

would be allowed if permitted by the WDEQ. Alternative energy development proposals would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis and would be permitted throughout the planning area except in WSAs 

and where prohibited by law. 

Special Designations and Management Areas 

The Rock Creek and Beaver Creek ACECs would be eliminated. A new ACEC would be designated in 

the Trapper’s Point area (550 acres). 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative Summaries 

Pinedale RMP 2-23 

The Lake Mountain (13,490 acres) and Scab Creek (7,710 acres) WSAs would be retained. WSAs would 

be managed under the “Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review” 

(USDI 1995). 

2.4.3 Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 is designed to analyze the impacts of providing the maximum level of environmental 

protection for surface resources while allowing for the production of oil and gas. Management actions, 

mitigation guidelines, and standards would provide the highest level of protection for all natural resources 

from impacts of oil and gas activities. Appendix 3 presents the mitigation guidelines and standards that 

provide requirements, consultation, guidance, and limitations on all aspects of oil and gas related 

activities. In addition, land allocations and areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing would be 

implemented. 

Additional goals of Alternative 3 are to protect and sustain resources and land uses, such as livestock 

grazing and recreation, in the planning area. To meet these additional goals, BLM would implement 

objectives and management actions that include restrictions and protective mitigation for each resource 

and land use. Special designations and management areas (SD/MA) would be emphasized under 

Alternative 3. 

Minerals 

Alternative 3 would make available approximately 476,080 acres for oil and gas leasing and development 

(Table 2-32 shows the number of acres of BLM mineral estate that is subject to leasing restrictions for 

conventional oil and gas exploration and development. The acreage values provided in the table are 

organized by the type and level of restriction and mineral potential. 

Table 2-32, p. 2-169). The planning area would be divided into three areas for management of oil and gas 

leasing and development (Map 2-8). Intensively Developed Fields would be managed for intensive oil 

and gas activities while protecting wildlife habitats to the extent practicable. Traditional Leasing Areas 

would be managed for protection of important values during oil and gas exploration, but would provide 

opportunity for oil and gas development activities. Unavailable Areas would be managed for protection of 

wildlife habitats through indefinitely postponing the availability of lands for oil and gas leasing. NSO 

would be allowed on big game crucial winter ranges (227,980 acres), migration routes and bottlenecks 

(32,170 acres), and parturition areas (35,360 acres) unless other restrictions are applied through ACEC or 

other SD/MAs. Timing and distance mitigations would be applied to protect sage-grouse, raptors, big 

game, and their habitats. Transportation planning would be required in all areas to reduce road density, 

duplication of routes, and unnecessary routes. Sensitive aquatic species habitats would be maintained or 

improved. Furthermore, 65,750 acres (New Fork Potholes, Trapper’s Point, Upper Green River, and CCC 

Ponds ACECs; Boulder Lake and Scab Creek SRMAs; East Fork River Unit Wild and Scenic Rivers 

(WSR); the Upper Green big game migration bottleneck; the Sublette Cutoff historical trail; and several 

sensitive cultural sites) would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry and land disposal. 

Other Resources 

The integrity of the visual setting of national historic trails would be protected from surface disturbing 

activities by relocating or redesigning projects within 3 miles from either side of the trail to conform to a 

VRM Class II designation. Alternative 3 would provide for prescribed and natural wildfire management 

to emulate historic natural fire regimes. Permitted use for livestock grazing would be reduced to 84,000 

AUMs. OHV use in the Desert General Use area would be limited to existing roads and trails. BLM 

would complete RAMPs, and an array of outdoor recreation activities, settings, and experiences on public 
Chapter 2—Alternative Summaries Final EIS 

2-24 Pinedale RMP 

lands for local residents and visitors would be provided. The Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA would 

be established. Vegetation would be managed to support wildlife habitat and livestock grazing needs, 

control soil erosion, provide riparian stability, control noxious weeds, and protect Special Status Species. 

The number of acres in VRM Class IV would be reduced to 282,300; the number of acres in Class III 

would be increased to 225,830 acres; and the area in Class II would be increased to 393,260 acres. 

Alternative 3 would limit soil erosion and impacts to riparian areas by working with the state to prohibit 

the discharge of produced waters to streams or other non-isolated surface features. As described in 

Appendix 3, allowing the use of surface water that WDEQ has approved for discharge for limited 

reclamation applications could help improve post-disturbance vegetative communities. Proposals for 

alternative energy development would be considered on a case-by-case basis and would not be approved 

in sensitive areas. 

Special Designations and Management Areas 

The Rock Creek and Beaver Creek ACECs would be retained. New ACECs would be designated in the 

Trapper’s Point, New Fork Potholes, Upper Green River, White-tailed Prairie Dog Habitats, Ross Butte, 

and CCC Ponds areas (65,340 acres). The Trapper’s Point ACEC would be larger under this alternative 

(9,540 acres). The Miller Mountain and Wind River Front Management Areas would be established 

(424,840 acres). Four river units would be managed as suitable for inclusion in the WSR System: East 

Fork, Scab Creek, Silver Creek, and the upper Green River (10,440 acres). The Lake Mountain (13,490 

acres) and Scab Creek (7,710 acres) WSAs would be retained. WSAs would be managed under the 

“Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review” (USDI 1995). 

2.4.4 Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) is designed to evaluate the impacts of optimizing production of oil and gas 

resources while providing the appropriate level of environmental protection for surface resources. 

Appendix 3 presents the mitigation guidelines and standards that provide setbacks, consultation, 

guidance, and limitations on all aspects of oil and gas related activities. In addition, land allocations and 

areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing would be implemented. 

Additional goals of Alternative 4 are to protect and sustain resources and land uses, such as livestock 

grazing and recreation, in the planning area. To meet these additional goals, BLM would implement 

objectives and management actions that include restrictions and protective mitigation for each resource 

and land use. 

Oil and gas leaseholders have rights that BLM is legally bound to honor. Alternative 4 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 an increase in drilling activity in recent years. 

Minerals 

Alternative 4 would make available approximately 758,180 acres for oil and gas leasing and development 

(Table 2-32 shows the number of acres of BLM mineral estate that is subject to leasing restrictions for 

conventional oil and gas exploration and development. The acreage values provided in the table are 

organized by the type and level of restriction and mineral potential. 

Table 2-32, p. 2-169). 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 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative Summaries 

Pinedale RMP 2-25 

and gas activities while protecting wildlife habitats to the extent practicable. Traditional Leasing Areas 

would be managed for protection of important values during oil and gas exploration, but would provide 

opportunity for oil and gas development activities. 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. Sensitive aquatic species habitats would be maintained or improved. Furthermore, 

13,770 acres (New Fork Potholes and Trapper’s Point ACECs, CCC Ponds SRMA, East Fork River Unit 

WSR, and several sensitive cultural sites) would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry and land 

disposal. 

Other Resources 

The integrity of the visual setting on contributing segments of national historic trails would be protected 

from surface disturbing activities by relocating or redesigning projects within 3 miles of either side of the 

trail to conform to a VRM Class II designation. The Proposed RMP would also provide for prescribed 

and natural wildfire management to emulate historic natural fire regimes. The current permitted AUMs 

for livestock grazing would be maintained unless monitoring indicates a need for adjustment. The 

Proposed RMP would limit OHV use in the Desert General Use area to existing roads and trails. BLM 

would complete RAMPs to provide an array of outdoor recreation activities, settings, and experiences on 

public lands for local residents and visitors. The Green and New Fork Rivers and CCC Ponds SRMAs 

would be established. Transportation planning would be conducted to provide access to and across public 

lands and to control the density and distribution of roads. Vegetation would be managed to support 

wildlife habitat and livestock grazing needs, control soil erosion and provide riparian stability, control 

noxious weeds, and protect Special Status Species. The number of acres in VRM Class IV would be 

reduced to 242,660; the number of acres in Class III would be increased to 419,410 acres; and the area in 

Class II would be increased to 239,520 acres. Soil erosion and impacts to riparian areas would be limited 

by working with the state to prohibit the discharge of produced waters to streams or other non-isolated 

surface features. Use of high-quality produced waters to assist in reclamation could be considered on a 

case-by-case basis, would be limited in scope, and would be governed by a number of operating standards 

(Appendix 3). Proposals for alternative energy development would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Special Designations and Management Areas 

The Rock Creek and Beaver Creek ACECs would be retained. New ACECs would be designated in the 

Trapper’s Point and New Fork Potholes areas (5,980 acres). The Miller Mountain, Ross Butte, and Wind 

River Front Management Areas would be established (303,350 acres). Four river units would be managed 

as suitable for inclusion in the WSR System: East Fork, Scab Creek, Silver Creek, and the upper Green 

River (10,440 acres). The Lake Mountain (13,490 acres) and Scab Creek (7,710 acres) WSAs would be 

retained. WSAs would be managed under the “Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands 

under Wilderness Review” (USDI 1995). 
Chapter 2—Alternative 1 Final EIS 

2-26 Pinedale RMP 

2.5 DETAILED ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS BY RESOURCE

In all cases, the management actions described in Section 2.3, Management Guidance Common to All 

Alternatives, should be considered an integral part of the management goals, objectives, and actions for 

the alternatives. 

2.5.1 Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 follows the 1988 Pinedale RMP ROD. 

Air Quality Management 

Air quality management is conducted through cooperation with the EPA, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), USFS, and WDEQ. 

Management Goals/Objectives 

Maintain air quality within or above required standards through cooperative management of emissions 

with industry, the State of Wyoming, and other federal regulatory agencies; protect public health and 

safety and the well-being of sensitive natural resources; and within the scope of BLM’s authority, 

minimize emissions that could add to acid rain, cause violations of air quality standards, or degrade 

visibility. 

Management Actions 

See Section 2.3.1, Air Quality, Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Management Goals/Objectives 

Resolve conflicts between cultural resources and other resource uses, provide appropriate levels of 

protection for significant cultural resources, design cultural resource management actions to maintain the 

value of cultural resources, and provide for the scientific and educational use of cultural resources. 

Management Actions 

Eligible sites would be listed in the NRHP. 

As necessary, withdrawal from exploration and development of locatable minerals on significant cultural 

resource sites would be pursued. 

Cooperative agreements would be pursued with local historical and archeological societies and other 

interested parties for attaining mutual historic preservation goals. 

Lands actions (for example, exchanges) in support of cultural resource management objectives would be 

pursued, as appropriate. 

Compliance with the cultural resource management decisions and other requirements would be monitored 

regarding (1) the performance of cultural resource use permittees and (2) stipulations on BLM leases and 

other use authorizations and selected sensitive sites. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 1 

Pinedale RMP 2-27 

Forest Management 

Management Goals/Objectives 

Provide a supply of forest products to the various segments of the public (individual and commercial 

vendors) and maintain or enhance other resource management objectives. 

Management Actions 

Consistent with Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives, forest management, and other 

resource management objectives, the forested lands would be classified into four management categories: 

• Category 1, Intensive Management, would include areas where the forested lands would be 

managed for multiple use but with emphasis placed on forest product utilization and forest 

management activities. 

• Category 2, Restricted Management, would include forested lands where wildlife, watershed, and 

recreation resource values would be emphasized, and actions such as partial cutting, extended 

forest crop rotations, etc., or other restrictions to forest management would be applied. 

• Category 3, Management to Enhance or Maintain Other Resources, would only allow forest 

management activities (for example, harvesting or thinning) on lands in this category when such 

activities would benefit resources or values other than forestry or would promote public safety. 

All forest lands included in the category are not included in the forest management base or in 

timber harvest calculations. 

• Category 4, No Forest Management, includes all areas where forest management is excluded. 

Approximately 24,223 acres of commercial conifer would be available for production of forest products. 

Of this total, approximately 20,836 acres would be subject to harvest method/equipment use and 

minimum cover level restrictions (Category 2). The remaining 3,387 acres would be unrestricted, except 

for general forest management guidelines applicable to all forest management activities (Category 1). 

Approximately 13,506 acres of woodland (Categories 1 and 2) would be available for forest product 

disposals on a demand basis. An additional 3,113 commercial conifer and woodland acres would be 

removed from the forest base (Categories 3 and 4). The 1,611 acres in Category 3 would be available for 

forest management activities when such activities are deemed necessary to maintain the integrity of the 

resource being protected (for example, wildlife or watershed) or to promote public safety. All forest lands 

in Categories 1, 2, and 3 would be available for emergency salvage of timber damaged or killed through 

insects, disease, wildfire, or other such events. 

Forested lands in Categories 1 and 2 would be managed to harvest an estimated 18.2 million board feet 

(MMBF) of timber over a 20-year period. The average annual harvest level would involve approximately 

137 acres but could vary to meet individual sale area objectives, depending on proposed harvest methods 

and individual sale conditions. 

Forest products (e.g., saw timber, firewood, Christmas trees, posts, poles, and wildlings) would be sold to 

individuals and to commercial vendors. Forest product sales would be conducted on all forest areas, 

except where specifically excluded (for example, the Rock Creek drainage and 7,626 acres in the Scab 

Creek area). 
Chapter 2—Alternative 1 Final EIS 

2-28 Pinedale RMP 

In addition to harvest, approximately 1,200 acres of precommercial thinning would occur during the 20-

year period. Precommercial thinning projects would generally be designed to achieve an 8-foot spacing 

(i.e., roughly 680 trees per acre would be left uncut) and should not significantly affect cover levels. 

Specific harvest and thinning sequences would be established in a forest management plan, which would 

establish a 20-year harvest schedule. Any forest management plans developed would be coordinated with 

adjacent landowners, the USFS, Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and other interested 

parties. 

Specific items to be addressed in any individual timber sale plan and in environmental assessments would 

include (1) approximate harvest units and proposed harvest methods, (2) existing road locations, (3) 

proposed new roads, (4) roads to be closed, (5) harvest acreages, (6) environmental mitigations, and (7) 

coordination with other resource programs and interests. 

All forest management activities authorized under this plan would adhere to the following restrictions. 

Exceptions would require supporting environmental analysis. 

• No clearcutting or tracked or wheel-type equipment operations would be allowed within a 100-

foot buffer of riparian areas. 

• Logging operations on slopes steeper than 45% would be limited to technologically, 

environmentally, and economically acceptable methods such as cable yarding and/or horse 

skidding. 

• No logging activities would be allowed from November 15 through April 30 in crucial elk winter 

ranges and feedgrounds, and from May 1 through June 30 in elk calving areas. 

• Generally, individual clearcut units would not exceed 25 acres. 

Regeneration in harvest units and burned areas must provide elk-hiding cover (i.e., vegetation capable of 

hiding 90% of an adult elk at a distance equal to or less than 200 feet), or must achieve preharvest 

stocking levels (i.e., numbers of trees per acre) with 12- to 15-foot tall trees, before timber harvesting 

would be allowed in adjacent stands. Exceptions would be allowed for emergency salvage of insect- or 

disease-infested timber and weather- or fire-damaged timber. 

Slash disposal would be tailored to the individual harvest unit to promote reforestation, minimize erosion, 

and allow big game movement. Methods that would be employed include broadcast burning, piling and 

burning, lopping and scattering, chipping, and roller chopping. 

Timber harvesting practices would be consistent with accepted silvicultural guidelines for each species 

but would also reflect individual stand conditions or other resource and environmental concerns. 

Artificial reforestation would be conducted to the extent necessary to eliminate the reforestation backlog 

and to ensure that minimum stocking levels on new clearcuts were achieved within 15 years after 

harvesting. 

Individual timber sale and general forest management plans would evaluate areas for possible 

management as old growth timber. 

Aspen stands would be managed to maintain or enhance wildlife values; however, they would also be 

used to produce wood products on a demand basis. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 1 

Pinedale RMP 2-29 

Within the general forest management objectives and guidelines, each of the following four management 

units would have separate sub-objectives and planned actions. 

Deadline-Pinegrove Unit. The Deadline-Pinegrove unit would be managed to give full protection to the 

CRCT in the Rock Creek drainage and to maintain October 1985 levels of forest cover for wildlife in the 

remainder of the unit. Approximately 953 acres would be available for harvest over a 20-year period. 

All forest management activities would be excluded in the Rock Creek drainage. 

A minimum of 90% of the conifer acreage in the Graphite and Riley Ridge crucial elk winter ranges 

would be maintained. Annual cover-level fluctuations would not be allowed except for emergency 

salvage. 

No clearcutting or road construction would be allowed within 1,000 feet of Beaver Creek. Exceptions 

would be granted only if additional site-specific analysis verified that such actions would not adversely 

affect crucial CRCT habitat. 

North Piney Unit. The North Piney unit would be managed to give full protection to the elk feedgrounds 

and to maintain October 1985 levels of forest cover for wildlife, primarily elk. 

All forest management activities would be excluded from the Finnegan and North Piney elk feedgrounds, 

except when such management would be necessary to maintain the integrity of the feedground 

environment. 

Approximately 680 acres would be harvested for forest products over a 20-year period. 

Miller Mountain Unit. The Miller Mountain unit would be managed to provide full protection to 

forested portions of the Fort Hill-Fontenelle elk winter range and to maintain in cover for wildlife 

approximately 90% of the conifer acreage in the remainder of the unit. 

Forest management activities would be excluded from the Fort Hill elk winter range. Exceptions would be 

allowed for emergency salvage when the wildlife would benefit. 

Approximately 396 acres or 10% of the conifer base, excluding the Fort Hill winter range, would be 

harvested over a 20-year period. 

Eastside-Hoback Unit. The Eastside-Hoback unit would be managed to give full protection to the 

forested portions of the elk feedgrounds and to manage the remaining forested lands for forest products on 

an allowable harvest/sustained yield basis. 

Approximately 781 acres would be harvested for forest products over the next 20 years. 

Forest management activities would be excluded from the Franz and Scab Creek elk feedgrounds, except 

for salvage and sanitation harvests when necessary to maintain the integrity of the feedground 

environment to benefit the elk. 

Other than for emergency salvage of damaged or dead trees and for public protection, no forest product 

harvesting would be allowed in the Scab Creek campground. Campers would be allowed to obtain 

firewood from designated areas. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 1 Final EIS 

2-30 Pinedale RMP 

Table 2-2 displays the timber harvest objectives for each management unit. The “Proposed Maximum 

Percent Out of Cover” column reflects the maximum yearly out-of-cover objective for the DeadlinePinegrove, North Piney, and Miller Mountain units. The Eastside-Hoback unit shows a harvest projection 

based on the sustained yield for the unit (not a harvest objective). 

Table 2-2. Timber Harvest Levels by Management Unit, Alternative 1 

Unit 

Conifer/ 

Cover 

Acreage1

Present 

Acres 

Out of 

Cover2

Percent 

Out of 

Cover 

Proposed 

Harvest 

Acres 

Proposed 

Maximum 

Percent 

Out of 

Cover 

Expected 

Volume 

(millions 

of board 

feet) 

Deadline-Pinegrove 12,126 953 8 953 8 6.2 

North Piney 4,450 680 15 680 15 4.4 

Miller Mountain 3,964 209 5 396 10 2.6 

Eastside-Hoback 3,683 23 1 781 21 5.0 

TOTAL 24,223 1,865 8 2,810 12 18.2 

1

Excludes forest acres where forest management activities would be prohibited. 2

Source: USDI 1985. 

Lands and Realty Management 

Management Goals/Objectives 

Provide land use authorizations in support of public needs—to be done in consideration of and in 

compliance with the various management decisions, goals, objectives, and resource restrictions required 

to protect or maintain the multiple uses and resource values. The right to occupy or acquire public lands 

would be authorized under the appropriate realty actions within a multiple use management concept and 

within the objectives and guidance provided under all resources. 

Management Actions 

Land Tenure Adjustment. Proposals for the disposal of public lands would be considered on a case-bycase basis (for example, transfer from the administration of BLM to other federal agencies or local or 

state governments; or disposal through methods such as Desert Land Entry [DLE], public sale, exchange, 

state indemnity selection, or Recreation and Public Purposes leases or patents). Generally, the preferred 

method of disposal would be exchange; however, any of the available methods could be used as 

appropriate to individual situations. Prior to taking any disposal action, an environmental analysis would 

be conducted on the proposal, and the involved lands would be evaluated for compliance with the 

disposal criteria listed in Appendix 13 and for consistency with objectives of the RMP. The mineral 

development potential of the land being considered for sale or exchange must be evaluated according to 

Sections 209 and 206 of FLPMA.

Approximately 6,400 acres were identified as suitable for future consideration for disposal, and another 

14,500 acres were identified as suitable for consideration for disposal only by exchange (Appendix 14; 

Map 2-10). Proposals to dispose of any other BLM-administered public lands would be considered and 

evaluated on a case-by-base basis. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 1 

Pinedale RMP 2-31 

Special attention would be given to retaining enough public lands at the Cora Y highway crossing, at the 

south end of Fremont Lake, and at other important wildlife migration routes to provide for free movement 

of migrating big game animals. 

Acquisition of nonfederal lands would be pursued by BLM, if needed, to accomplish management 

objectives of the RMP. Such acquisition would by considered primarily in areas of predominantly federal 

ownership, when other management options such as cooperative agreements were not available, and then 

primarily through exchange. Lands needed for wildlife habitat enhancement are identified in Appendix 

14. Other areas could be identified in the future. 

Lands actions (for example, exchanges) would be pursued to enhance and maintain key wildlife habitats. 

Land exchanges to acquire state and private lands in crucial habitats in important and predominantly 

federal management areas (for example, Rock Creek ACEC, New Fork Potholes, key riparian areas) 

would be pursued. 

DLE petition applications would be disqualified when the public lands were identified as— 

1. Lands within the capability classes that the USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation 

Service (now the National Resource Conservation Service [NRCS]) was seeking to remove from 

cultivation under the Conservation Reserve Program. 

2. Lands that the USDA Soil Conservation Service showed as being “nonirrigable.” 

3. Lands identified as sensitive, unique, or necessary to fulfill the RMP management objectives. 

4. DLE petition applications would also be disqualified when the public lands would be used for the 

growth of government price-supported crops or when use of water supplies would deplete an 

undergroundwater supply beyond its annual recharge capability, thus threatening existing water users. 

Withdrawals and Classifications. Whenever necessary, withdrawals in support of other resource 

management objectives and actions would be pursued.

Classification and Multiple Use Act retention and disposal classifications (Orders W-19140, W-25810, 

and W-12668) in Sublette and Lincoln counties would be terminated. In areas covered by these orders, 

discretionary management under the provisions of FLPMA would be consistent with the provisions of the 

RMP. 

ROWs. Applications for ROWs and other land use authorizations would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. They would be processed consistent with the objectives of the RMP and would include any 

necessary mitigation requirements, offset retrogression, or displacement of natural resource and economic 

values.

Areas closed to mineral leasing, having an NSO restriction, or otherwise identified as unsuitable for 

surface disturbance or occupancy in other sections of the RMP would be managed as avoidance or 

exclusion areas for ROWs (Map 2-11). Such areas include, but are not limited to, recreation and cultural 

sites, the Rock Creek ACEC, and the Deadline Ridge-Graphite evaluation area. However, following a 

supporting environmental analysis, some types of ROW projects could be allowed in such areas if they 

were located in areas with a high potential for reclamation, would have impacts that would be temporary 

in nature, and would be compatible with the resource values being protected. 

Areas requiring mitigations and restrictions for surface-disturbing activities would be managed as 

restricted areas for ROWs. Restrictions would include, but would not limited to, seasonal restrictions for 
Chapter 2—Alternative 1 Final EIS 

2-32 Pinedale RMP 

wildlife, sensitive watersheds, steep slopes, off-road vehicle (ORV) designations, and other measures 

necessary to prevent degradation of cultural, historical, and recreational sites. Restricted areas for ROWs 

would include wildlife crucial winter ranges, the Beaver Creek ACEC, the Upper Green River SRMA, 

and the Soap Holes area. 

Two transportation/transmission corridors would be designated (Map 3-10). Actual corridor widths would 

be flexible within the constraints provided in the various resource objectives of the RMP. 

Corridors are preferred routes for transportation and transmission facilities. Identification of corridors 

would not preclude location of transportation and transmission facilities in other areas if environmental 

analysis indicated that the facilities would be compatible with other resource values and objectives. 

Further identification of corridors would not mandate that transportation and transmission facilities would 

be located there if they were not compatible with other resource uses, values, and objectives in and near 

the corridors or if the corridors were saturated. Each ROW application would be reviewed and analyzed 

using the environmental data that existed for the area as a basis to determine compatibility with existing 

uses and resource values. 

Livestock Grazing Management 

Management Goals/Objectives 

Maintain or improve ecological range condition and maintain or increase forage for livestock grazing, 

while providing for the maintenance or improvement of wildlife habitat, watershed values, and riparian 

areas. 

For riparian areas, maintain, restore, and improve riparian values where livestock grazing has contributed 

to riparian management problems. 

Management Actions 

Grazing Preference. The current seasons of use, kinds of livestock, and amount of grazing use would 

continue until monitoring indicated a modification could be accommodated or was necessary. The current 

grazing preference objective of 107,907 AUMs would be maintained or increased through 

implementation of allotment management plans (AMP), range improvements, and vegetation 

manipulation. If these measures failed to achieve the grazing preference objective, while providing for 

protection of other resource values as established in the plan, livestock reductions could become 

necessary. 

Reductions in permitted grazing use may be enacted if other mitigation measures are impracticable or 

unsuccessful. Any adjustments in livestock grazing use will be made as a result of monitoring of and in 

consultation with grazing permittees and other affected interests. 

All developed and semi-developed recreation sites would be closed to livestock grazing. 

Unallocated Public Lands. The 20,991 acres of unallocated forage on public lands would be considered 

for allocation on a case-by-case basis in accordance with RMP goals and objectives. The number of 

AUMs to be allocated would be determined after the lands had been evaluated. 

Elk Winter Range. Adequate forage for wintering elk would be provided to the extent possible in the 

Bench Corral, Miller Mountain-Fort Hill, Riley Ridge, and Graphite elk winter ranges. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 1 

Pinedale RMP 2-33 

In cases where adequate forage for wintering elk was not available, adequate forage could be provided 

through a combination of management practices, including livestock grazing systems, grazing 

adjustments, and vegetation manipulation. 

Livestock water developments on crucial elk winter ranges would be allowed only if they did not result in 

adverse impacts on the crucial range. 

Allotment Management Plans. New AMPs would be written and implemented on I category allotments. 

Existing AMPs on I allotments would be modified to meet livestock objectives and incorporate wildlife 

and watershed objectives to be attained through livestock management. Existing AMPs on M category 

allotments would not be modified unless monitoring and evaluation indicated a change in management 

was needed. New AMPs or activity plans would require environmental analyses. 

All grazing systems would be designed to maintain or improve plant diversity. Specific objectives would 

be determined during AMP preparation to provide forage diversity for pronghorn, mule deer, and sagegrouse as well as livestock. Grazing systems would be designed to limit forage competition for forbs and 

other desirable plants, particularly in the spring of the year. 

Interagency Cooperative Management Plans. Any cooperative AMPs prepared with other agencies, 

such as USFS and the Soil Conservation Service, would be consistent with this land use plan. 

Range Improvements. New range improvements would be implemented on I category allotments as first 

priority. The range improvements on M and C category allotments would be funded as priorities allowed, 

or they could be implemented with other funds from permittees, other agencies, or grazing boards. First 

priority within M and C allotments would be given to projects that had contributed funds. New range 

improvements (for example, vegetation manipulation, water developments, and fencing) would be 

designed, to the extent possible, to meet multiple use objectives for all resources. The maintenance 

responsibility for range improvements would be assigned to the benefiting users. The maintenance and 

reconstruction of range improvements would be accomplished as needed. 

Approximately 98,552 acres were identified as suitable for vegetation manipulation to increase forage 

production in the I and M allotments. Brush control guidelines would be applied to acreages determined 

suitable for vegetation manipulation. The acreages are considered target figures for potential range 

improvements. Development of AMPs and other activity plans will further refine the acreages according 

to livestock grazing, wildlife, and other resource objectives. Some allotments have very small acreages 

available for treatment. Because of the high cost of treating such small areas, they are not likely to be 

treated. Other allotments containing large acreages may not receive the total projected treatment because 

of resource considerations (for example, sage-grouse nesting, and erodible soils). Acreage of brush 

control could increase or decrease on certain allotments depending on rangeland management needs 

addressed in AMPs and other activity plans. 

All brush control projects would involve site-specific environmental analysis and coordination with 

affected livestock operators and the WGFD; and would include multiple use objectives for other resource 

uses, including livestock, wildlife, and watershed. 

Vegetation manipulations in I allotments would be financed by BLM monies and other monies, if 

available. BLM range improvement monies would generally not be used to finance vegetation 

manipulations in M allotments until all the range improvements were accomplished in I category 

allotments. The vegetation manipulations in M category allotments could be financed by other sources 

such as permittees, other agencies, or grazing boards. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 1 Final EIS 

2-34 Pinedale RMP 

Prescribed fire would generally be the preferred method of vegetation manipulation for the conversion of 

brushland to grassland. Wildfires occurring in areas with a fire prescription would be allowed to burn as 

long as they remained within the prescriptions and met land use objectives. Other vegetation manipulation 

methods would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

All new project development would be required to meet the criteria provided in Appendix 15. Range 

improvements would be made in accordance with RMP and activity plan objectives and priorities. Total 

project needs would be considered for each allotment before public funds were spent. A cost/benefit 

analysis would be completed on an allotment basis before range improvements were constructed with 

government funding. 

To reduce streambank degradation, salt blocks for livestock and wildlife use would not be placed within 

500 feet of live water, wetland, or riparian areas, unless activity plans showed that it was necessary to 

meet management objectives. 

Forage Increases. Any forage increases realized from management prescriptions and range improvement 

practices would be allocated to wildlife, watershed, and livestock. Site-specific objectives for wildlife, 

watershed, and livestock grazing would be developed to identify each resource use that would receive a 

forage allocation. 

Actual forage allocation from forage increases would be based on site-specific analysis and would 

conform to the multiple use objectives of the activity plans. The allocation for forage resulting from 

treatments financed by permittees, as in M category allotments that did not have crucial wildlife ranges, 

would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. More forage could be allocated to livestock grazing than to 

other resource uses, if done in accordance with the current federal grazing regulations, including 

consistency with the multiple use management objectives set forth in the RMP. 

Consultation with the affected parties would be necessary at the outset of planning for the project 

allocating increased forage to ensure satisfactory proportioning of the additional range. 

Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation. Ecological range site condition mapping would be completed. 

Conversions in Kind. Conversions from cattle to sheep would generally not be allowed on the crucial 

pronghorn and deer winter ranges. 

Noxious Weeds. Noxious weeds would be controlled by continuing the existing noxious weed program 

within the resource area. The authorization of and guidelines for noxious weed control are documented in 

the Northwest Area Weed Control Program EIS (USDI 1987). 

Minerals Management 

Management Goals/Objectives 

The public lands and federal mineral estate will be made available for orderly and efficient development 

of mineral resources. All minerals actions will comply with goals, objectives, and resource restrictions 

(mitigations) required to protect the other resource values in the Pinedale planning area. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 1 

Pinedale RMP 2-35 

Management Actions 

Leasable Minerals 

Generally, the planning area would be open to consideration for exploration, leasing, and development for 

all leasable minerals, which include oil, gas, coal, oil shale, trona, and geothermal steam, in accordance 

with all applicable provisions (restrictions and prohibitions). All activities would be conducted in 

accordance with the guidance for mitigation of surface disturbing activities provided in Appendices 2 and 

5. 

Oil and Gas. The 7,636-acre Scab Creek area would be closed to oil and gas leasing. The remainder of 

the planning area would be open to consideration for leasing, exploration, and development of oil and gas. 

BLM would evaluate industry-proposed measures to protect health and safety through the drilling permit 

process. Of particular concern would be the requirements of approved contingency plans for hydrogen 

sulfuric acid (H2S) release. Requirements of operators could include conducting dispersion analyses to 

determine ambient H2S concentrations during well blowouts, collecting onsite meteorological data, 

preparing detailed evacuation plans, and placing offsite warning signs. 

The Riley Ridge Project Monitoring Program would be continued. Further monitoring would include 

gathering 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 water and groundwater quality, grazing, and cultural 

resources, as appropriate. 

Geophysical Exploration. Geophysical notices of intent would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. All 

acreage in the planning area would be subject to various appropriate limitations (for example, vehicle use 

restrictions), including approximately 517,170 acres subject to seasonal limitations. In addition, the use of 

explosive charges would not be allowed in any area if analysis determined that unacceptable adverse 

impacts would occur. 

Generally, all authorizations would be issued with appropriate application of surface disturbance 

mitigation requirements as presented in Appendix 2. 

Specific limitations include— 

• Approximately 7,640 acres in the Scab Creek area would be closed to geophysical activities. 

• Areas closed to ORV use would also be closed to vehicle use for geophysical activities. 

• In the Beaver Creek ACEC, geophysical activities would be restricted to existing roads and trails. 

• Geophysical vehicle travel through developed and semi-developed recreation sites would be 

restricted to established roads and trails. 

• Geophysical activities in the remaining NSO areas (mostly cultural sites and elk feedgrounds) 

would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and could be restricted if unacceptable impacts would 

occur on other resources (for example, water quality, cultural, wildlife, recreation, and visual 

resource values). 

Oil and Gas Leasing and Geophysical Activities in the Rock Creek ACEC and Surrounding Area. 

The Rock Creek ACEC and surrounding area (approximately 17,000 acres) would be available for 
Chapter 2—Alternative 1 Final EIS 

2-36 Pinedale RMP 

consideration for oil and gas leasing with appropriate stipulations, following the completion of an activity 

plan and associated environmental analysis. 

That portion of the Rock Creek ACEC within the Rock Creek watershed boundary would be leased with 

an NSO stipulation for protection of the pure strain of CRCT in Rock Creek. 

Leasing guidelines and objectives in the remaining parts of the Rock Creek ACEC and portions of the 

adjacent Deadline Ridge-Graphite Hollow crucial elk winter range would be established in a site-specific 

minerals and wildlife management plan (activity plan) and environmental analysis. This plan would 

include an evaluation of the ongoing elk habitat use study and compilation of geologic data. 

The plan would also include the following direction: 

• Oil and gas leasing direction, regarding related activities in the evaluation area east of the Rock 

Creek ACEC, would be designed to ensure continued elk winter use in the Deadline RidgeGraphite Hollow area. Oil and gas development would be allowed if determined to be compatible 

with continued elk use of the crucial winter range. No substantial adverse impacts on this elk 

habitat would be allowed. 

• Oil and gas leasing direction, regarding related activities in the evaluation area west of the Rock 

Creek ACEC, would be guided by the RMP multiple use guidelines and objectives. Evaluation 

could allow for some development on this portion of the crucial elk winter range, as long as RMP 

planning objectives are met. 

• The Deadline Ridge-Graphite Hollow wildlife/leasing study and activity plan would identify any 

suitable areas for surface occupancy based on the previously mentioned mineral leasing 

guidelines and objectives. Any requests for relief from leasing restrictions that are in conflict with 

these guidelines and objectives would be analyzed on an individual basis. Based on the analysis, 

either the conflicting actions would be denied or a plan amendment would be initiated to modify 

the plan objectives. 

Upon completion of the Deadline Ridge-Graphite Hollow activity plan, large contiguous areas may be 

offered for lease with the NSO stipulation. These areas could only be accessed through directional 

drilling. The NSO stipulation would be used, rather than a no lease provision, under the assumption that 

industry is the best judge of whether technology would enable access to the oil and gas resources in 

compliance with the terms of the lease. 

Leasing with the NSO stipulation could become necessary if the area were characterized by steep, and in 

many cases unstable slopes, with stream/riparian zones “filling” the valley bottoms. Any disturbance on 

the steep slopes or in the riparian zone would threaten the crucial elk and cutthroat trout habitats directly. 

Leasing with the NSO stipulation could also become necessary if deep gas were of primary interest in the 

evaluation area. Drilling to these reserves has required more than a year’s time, which appears to make 

seasonal restrictions inadequate mitigation to protect the wildlife values. The objective of the evaluation 

would be to find potential areas for deep drilling access while still protecting wildlife values. Input from 

industry, as well as from concerned public groups or individuals, would be sought for this evaluation. 

Leasing with an NSO restriction could occur prior to completion of the evaluation in those areas where 

drainage of federal oil or gas is occurring. 

That portion of the Rock Creek watershed boundary within the Rock Creek ACEC (4,200 acres) would be 

open only to portable geophysical activities. Activities in the remainder of the Rock Creek ACEC (outside 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 1 

Pinedale RMP 2-37 

the drainage, approximately 1,000 acres) would be evaluated on a case-by-base basis and could be 

restricted if analysis determined that restrictions were necessary. 

Other Leasable Minerals. Should interest in other leasable minerals materialize in the future, leasing 

would be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the RMP would be amended as appropriate and 

necessary. The same surface disturbance restrictions would be used in analyzing leasing proposals and 

determining the issuance of any leases (for example, geothermal steam, coal, sodium, oil shale, and 

phosphate). In the event of a coal lease application, the coal planning screening process in 43 CFR 

§3420.1-4 would be applied. 

The existing withdrawals for phosphate, coal, and oil shale would be revoked. These mineral resources no 

longer need such protection because under the Multiple Mineral Use Act of 1954 (Public Law [P.L.] 585), 

any claims posted on a preexisting lease must allow the lease to be developed, and both locatable and 

leasable development can occur on the same land. Mineral leases, other than oil and gas, would be subject 

to the same resource constraints as established for other surface disturbing activities. 

Locatable Minerals 

With the exception of withdrawn lands, the planning area would be open to mineral location. Areas 

identified in the future as needing total protection from locatable mineral activities would be withdrawn 

from mineral location (Map 2-12). 

Salable Minerals 

Applications for mineral sales and free use permits (for example, sand or gravel) would be analyzed and 

processed on a case-by-case basis, and appropriate surface disturbance mitigation requirements would be 

included in permits. 

Paleontology and Natural History 

Management Goals/Objectives 

Protect and preserve representative samples of the natural history and paleontological values that are 

present in the planning area. 

Management Actions 

As areas of unique natural history or particular natural interest are identified, they would be nominated for 

designation as National Natural Landmarks (NNL), Research Natural Areas (RNA), or ACECs and 

managed for protection of the unique values. Interpretation of the natural features and public use would 

be emphasized. 

The Pinedale-Boulder Glacial area has been proposed for designation as an NNL. The area would be 

studied in cooperation with the USFS to determine applicability of the designation. Should the 

designation occur, the site would be managed to protect the unique geological and ecological features and 

provide for public interpretation of these features. 

Recreation Management 

Management Goals/Objectives 

Accommodate existing uses, prevent or mitigate environmental degradation resulting from recreation and 

other uses, and provide for the anticipated recreation uses and use levels in the resource area. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 1 Final EIS 

2-38 Pinedale RMP 

Management Actions 

Management emphasis would be placed on the current recreation management areas, including Scab 

Creek, the Green and New Fork rivers, Oregon Trail routes, and Boulder Lake. 

A maximum 16-day camping limit would be implemented throughout the planning area. Areas requiring 

shorter limits would be posted. Written authorizations would be required for longer periods. 

Cooperative recreation projects and those with contributed funding could be given priority for 

development in conformance with established recreation objectives and priorities. 

Withdrawals from exploration and development of locatable minerals would be pursued, as necessary, on 

developed and semi-developed recreation sites (approximately 590 acres). 

Recreation management for the Scab Creek area, the Green and New Fork rivers, and the Oregon Trail 

routes would emphasize maintaining or improving the quality of the sites and the recreation experience. 

Public lands along the Green and New Fork rivers would be managed to provide fishing and float-boating 

opportunities. Necessary facilities would be developed to improve public access and use opportunities. 

Special recreation permits, commercial recreation uses, and major competitive recreation events would 

include mitigations developed to ensure the protection of other resources in accordance with objectives of 

all resource values involved. 

Boulder Lake SRMA Management Actions. Boulder Lake would be established as an SRMA, and 

related recreation facilities would be developed to improve public access and use opportunities. 

Scab Creek SRMA Management Actions. The Scab Creek SRMA is shown on a map in the 1988 ROD 

and RMP but is not explicitly mentioned in the text of the decision. 

Upper Green River SRMA Management Actions. The Upper Green River segment (above Warren 

Bridge) would be managed as an SRMA. 

Soils and Watershed Management 

Management Goals/Objectives 

Maintain or enhance the quality of surface water and groundwater, maintain or improve channel stability 

and overall watershed conditions, provide soils conservation through managing for maintenance of soil 

productivity and stability, and allow water infiltration to provide for optimal plant growth. 

Management Actions 

Management actions would emphasize the reduction of soil erosion and sediment and salinity 

contributions to the Green River Basin water system. Practices applied to surface disturbing activities to 

help achieve this are found in Appendix 2. Of particular importance would be those areas with highly 

saline soils such as the Soap Holes Basin and crucial watersheds where surface disturbance would be 

minimized. These crucial watersheds are generally found within the boundaries of the groundwater 

recharge zones. 

Corrective measures to be applied wherever unsatisfactory watershed conditions were identified would be 

developed and implemented through activity plans (for example, watershed, habitat, allotment, or timber 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 1 

Pinedale RMP 2-39 

management plans). Such measures would also be implemented through stipulations attached to permits, 

leases, and other authorizations. 

The Wyoming BLM Standard Mitigation Guidelines for Surface Disturbing Activities (Appendix 2) and 

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. 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 the RMP objectives. 

Projects proposed on BLM-administered lands would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for effects on 

soil and water resources. Soil management practices would be applied on a site-specific basis using soil 

survey data and would be related to the soil characteristics such as the steepness of slopes, the length of 

slope, and soil chemistry and composition. Watershed management practices would follow similar 

guidelines. 

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 (Appendices 2 and 5). (At certain times of year, use would be precluded until soil 

moisture was such that the use or activity would not result in degradation of the soil resource and 

watershed condition. The closures would occur predominantly in the spring and autumn.) 

A monitoring program for specific surface waters would be continued to identify trends in water quality. 

Public drinking water at recreation sites would also be protected and monitored to be in compliance with 

EPA safe drinking water standards. 

A Level II groundwater study of the Riley Ridge/LaBarge area would be completed to define the 

groundwater resource and to determine what additional groundwater monitoring and protective measures 

would be necessary with regard to subsurface activities conducted in the area (such as oil and gas drilling 

activities). 

Groundwater protection would continue to be provided by applying the procedures described in Appendix 

5. Special precautions would be taken to ensure protection of groundwater quality when surface 

disturbance was to occur on groundwater recharge zones. Criteria for determining depth of fresh water are 

found in Appendices 2 and 5. 

An activity plan for reducing erosion and channel degradation would be prepared for the Tip Top 

watershed. Specific actions could include road maintenance, recontouring, and reseeding of disturbed 

sites to help achieve soil stabilization. 

A watershed and recreation plan would be prepared on the Stewart Point-Mount Airy area for reducing 

sedimentation while still allowing ORV use. A more detailed description of this area can be found in the 

ORV section. 

Off-Road Vehicle Management 

Management Goals/Objectives 

Allow the legitimate use of ORVs where possible and provide adequate protection for identified sensitive 

resources. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 1 Final EIS 

2-40 Pinedale RMP 

Management Actions 

The ORV designations for the entire planning area would be as described in Table 2-28, p. 2-162. 

The entire planning area would be designated as open, closed, or limited to ORV uses. The majority of 

the area would be designated as limited (i.e., travel limited to existing roads and trails, except for overthe-snow vehicles) (Map 2-13). 

The Bench Corral elk winter range would be closed to all ORV use, including over-the-snow vehicles, 

from November 15 through April 30. Lands around the Franz, Finnegan, Scab Creek, Fall Creek, and 

North Piney feedgrounds would also be closed to ORV use and unauthorized human presence from 

November 15 through April 30. 

The Deer Hills, Oil Field, and Mesa deer and pronghorn winter ranges would have a winter travel 

limitation restricting vehicle travel from November 15 through April 30 on an as-needed basis. These 

seasonal limitations would be implemented in cooperation with WGFD during severe winters or periods 

of disturbance of the wildlife wintering in these areas of concern. 

Approximately 120 acres in the Holden Hill area would be closed to all ORV use. 

ORV open use areas would be provided to allow for recreational ORV uses. The two initial areas (Mount 

Airy and Big Piney) would be established adjacent to the towns of Pinedale and Big Piney. These areas 

would be established to provide intensive use areas for ORVs after a site-specific environmental analysis 

was considered and an activity plan was prepared. Precise boundaries for the areas would be determined 

in the course of preparing and analyzing the activity plan. 

The Desert General Use area would remain open to generalized ORV uses. This area has more than 

237,000 contiguous acres of public land (Map 2-13). The Desert Open Area would be monitored to 

determine whether unacceptable impact levels were occurring or being approached, which would require 

that ORV use be reevaluated and limited accordingly. 

In general, ORV use would be monitored periodically to determine actual use and public demands. 

Monitoring of high-density roaded areas would be conducted as described in the Access Management 

section. 

Access Management 

Management Goals/Objectives 

Provide suitable public access to BLM-administered public lands. This could include acquiring new 

access where needed, maintaining existing access, and expanding existing access facilities or abandoning 

and closing access where it was not compatible with resource values and objectives. 

Management Actions 

Access across private lands would be pursued as needed through a variety of methods, including, but not 

limited to, purchase of ROWs or easements, land exchange, reciprocal ROWs, and other statutory 

authorities. Refer to USDI 1985 for a description of specific access acquisition procedures. Map 3-10 

shows general locations of possible access routes or areas where legal access is needed. Specific routes 

and acquisition procedures for securing access would be determined through route analyses and 

environmental analyses as part of specific project and activity planning. Where appropriate, land 

exchanges or cooperative agreements would be considered to provide access needs. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 1 

Pinedale RMP 2-41 

A detailed evaluation of high-density roaded areas in the planning area would be completed to determine 

needs for specific road closures and (or) rehabilitation. Priority evaluation areas would include the Red 

Canyon, Red Castle Creek, and Fish Creek areas, as well as oil and gas fields in the southwestern portion 

of the resource area. Some existing roads could be closed except for administrative purposes. Specific 

mitigation measures and design requirements for roads would be developed through environmental 

analyses as part of specific project or activity planning. 

Access closure, abandonment, and acquisition would be considered and established through activity 

planning and environmental analysis processes. Road or trail closure and abandonment would be based on 

desired road or trail densities; demands for new roads; closure methods (for example, abandonment and 

rehabilitation, closures by signing, and temporary or seasonal closures); type of access needed; resource 

development or protection needs; and existing uses. 

Vegetation Management 

Management Goals/Objectives (Riparian Areas) 

Maintain, improve, or restore riparian values to provide enhanced forage, habitat, and stream quality. 

Riparian Area Management Actions 

Priority for riparian management would be given to those areas identified as CRCT habitat. Management 

actions could include reductions in livestock numbers, adjustments in grazing distribution patterns, 

fencing, herding, livestock conversions, etc. Unallocated public lands containing riparian areas would be 

managed according to the same objective, with emphasis on wildlife and watershed objectives, but not 

necessarily to the exclusion of livestock uses. 

Refer to management actions described under all other programs for accomplishing riparian objectives. 

Riparian management is an integral part of all resources and related management programs. Those 

activities that affect or are affected by riparian values would take into account the riparian objectives and 

direction. Resource values and uses that affect or are affected by riparian values include wildlife and 

fisheries habitat, forest resources, livestock grazing, ORV use, visual resources, cultural and historical 

resources, minerals exploration and development activities, lands and realty activities, watershed and soils 

resources, recreation uses, fire management, and access. 

Visual Resources Management 

Management Goals/Objectives 

Maintain overall integrity of visual resources while allowing for modification and changes to occur to 

meet other resource objectives. 

Management Actions 

VRM classes have been established in line with overall resource management objectives of the RMP. 

Table 2-29, p. 2-164, shows the classification acreages, and Map 2-14 shows the classification area 

boundaries. These areas would be subject to change and further definition as more inventories and 

evaluations are conducted. 

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. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 1 Final EIS 

2-42 Pinedale RMP 

The VRM class areas would be monitored periodically for cumulative impacts that could potentially 

conflict with their classifications. 

Wildland Fire and Fuels Management 

Management Goals/Objectives 

Protect public safety, life, and property while providing the maximum benefits of both prescribed fire and 

wildfire to overall resource management. 

Management Actions 

Fire would be considered a management option for vegetation manipulation to (1) convert brush to other 

desired species; (2) rejuvenate desired species; (3) increase forage; (4) increase vegetation nutrient value 

and palatability; (5) promote wildlife habitat diversity; (6) improve vegetation cover on areas with 

insufficient protective ground cover; and (7) maintain or improve range, wildlife habitat, and watershed 

condition. 

Fire would also be considered a management option for disposal of timber slash, seed bed preparation, 

hazard reduction, control of disease or insects, thinning, or species manipulation in support of forest 

management objectives. 

In preparing activity plans, consideration would be given to fire applications in meeting resource 

management objectives. 

A fire management action plan would be written for the planning area. Specific boundaries and fire 

management prescriptions would be consistent with or in support of the other identified resource values 

and management objectives. 

Areas would be identified where a prescribed set of conditions would be acceptable in the event of an 

ignition. Prescribed fires would generally be confined to 200 acres or less in areas where current 

vegetation stages are desirable. 

Fire protection on public lands would be managed by taking appropriate suppression actions through the 

fire management plan. Resource and operational support for pre-suppression and suppression planning 

would be coordinated with the USFS, Sublette County Sheriff’s Office, Wyoming State Forestry 

Division, and local fire protection districts. 

Wilderness areas would be managed as prescribed fire areas. Fire suppression in wilderness areas requires 

restraint in suppression methods. In any designated wilderness areas, the fire management objective 

would be to manage fire in ways that would cause the least degradation of wilderness values. 

Prescribed burning would be conducted in a manner that would (1) not violate ambient air quality 

standards, (2) avoid visibility impairment (3) minimize public nuisance, and (4) minimize smoke 

intrusions into sensitive areas. 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management 

Management Goals/Objectives 

To the extent practicable, wildlife habitat management would be oriented toward the maintenance of fish 

and wildlife habitats to support populations at 1987 WGFD planning objective levels. Activity planning 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 1 

Pinedale RMP 2-43 

would emphasize habitat enhancement and protection. Changes within WGFD planning objective levels 

would be considered based on habitat capability and availability. Wildlife habitat activity planning would 

include other species as well as federally listed T&E species and the CRCT. 

Management Actions 

In the Deadline-Graphite area, management emphasis would be placed on maintaining crucial elk winter 

habitat. 

In elk feedgrounds, management emphasis would be on maintenance of habitat quality and continued use 

of the areas as elk feedgrounds. To maintain the integrity of the elk feedgrounds, certain activities would 

be constrained on lands near them. The NSO restriction would be imposed on the elk feedgrounds for all 

activities except those that would have impacts that were temporary in nature or that were compatible 

with elk habitat management. 

T&E species and their habitats would be protected. Actions that would degrade habitat to a point of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of a T&E species would not be allowed. 

USFWS would be consulted on any action with reasonable potential to affect endangered species or their 

habitats. A biological assessment would be prepared on all proposals that would or could affect T&E 

species habitat, and a biological opinion would be requested from the USFWS. 

All actions would include consideration for T&E plant and animal species. The Pinedale Resource Area 

would continue to be inventoried to identify potential habitat and occurrence of T&E species. 

Identification of habitat occupied by T&E species and habitat with potential to help support these species 

would be managed in accordance with the national recovery plans. Potential habitat includes high-density 

prairie dog towns for black-footed ferrets; wetlands for whooping cranes; high cliffs over riparian zones 

for peregrine falcons; and cottonwood stands along the Green, New Fork, and East Fork rivers for bald 

eagles. Management prescriptions for potential habitat would include consideration for future occupancy 

by T&E species. Key habitat characteristics would be identified to help ensure maintenance of highquality areas for natural reoccupation. Proposals for introductions of plant and/or animal T&E species on 

BLM-administered lands would be evaluated and analyzed, considering the impact of other activities. 

Habitat occupied by federally listed T&E plant and animal species would be monitored to ensure 

compliance with the ESA. The CRCT would be monitored in cooperation with the WGFD. 

Areas with habitat having the potential to support transplanted or introduced wildlife species (other than 

T&E species) would be identified in the development of activity plans and managed in accordance with 

RMP objectives. Proposals for introductions or species transplants to BLM-administered public lands 

would be evaluated and analyzed, and the impact on and of other resources would be considered. 

Cooperative agreements would be developed, if necessary, to facilitate species transplants and habitat 

management. 

Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and sage-grouse use patterns would be monitored. Habitat trends for the 

species would be interpreted through survey data collected in cooperation with livestock and watershed 

studies and monitoring activities. Interdisciplinary selection of key areas and plant species would ensure 

that crucial habitats were monitored. 

The East Front Aquatic Habitat Management Plan (HMP) would be implemented to promote riparian 

habitat management and protect the CRCT. In addition, this HMP and the Upper Green River HMP 
Chapter 2—Alternative 1 Final EIS 

2-44 Pinedale RMP 

would include consideration of habitat improvement and related projects for enhancing habitat for 

waterfowl and aquatic species. 

Riparian area maintenance, improvement, and restoration would help promote quality fish habitat on 

streams and lakes. Coordination with WGFD would continue on the Tri-State Conservation Agreement 

and Strategy 2005 and with local multi-agency management plans for CRCT. Coordination with WGFD 

would continue on management of the three species and implementation of the three Species 

Conservation Agreement and Strategy. Efforts to control siltation into the East Fork, New Fork, and 

Green Rivers would be pursued to improve the water quality of these fisheries. Water quality standards 

for other fishing streams and lakes would be coordinated with WGFD and the WDEQ. Adherence to these 

standards would help maintain existing fish habitat. 

High priority would be given to improvement of wildlife habitat through vegetation manipulation. Table 

2-3 presents identified opportunities by vegetation type and animal species seasonal habitat. Any areas 

identified in the future as suitable for treatment to benefit wildlife would be considered. 

Table 2-3. Vegetative Manipulation Opportunities (by Prescribed Burn) 

Vegetation Type Species Benefited Treatment Objectives 

Elk Increase volume of grass forage on winter range 

Mule Deer Increase early green forage on spring/fall range 

Pronghorn Increase plant diversity and forb component on summer 

range 

Sagebrush/Grass 

Sage-Grouse Same as pronghorn 

Elk Stimulate aspen regeneration and set back subalpine fir 

invasion to perpetuate aspen stands in spring/summer range Aspen-Aspen/Fir 

Complex 

Mule Deer Same as elk 

Willow Bottoms Moose Increase willow regeneration in critical moose habitat 

Vegetation treatments for livestock grazing and other resource objectives would include consideration of 

wildlife objectives and related restrictions. Table 2-4 describes restrictions for vegetation manipulation 

necessary to provide protection for wildlife in sagebrush types. 

Table 2-4. Habitat Guidelines for Brush Control 

Habitat Classification Guideline 

Sage-grouse breeding complex (that area within a 2-

mile radius of an active strutting ground). 

Percentage restriction to be applied on each individual 

lek or complex of leks within contiguous buffer areas. 

Maximum of 20% of sagebrush type treated at any 

time. 

Crucial pronghorn, mule deer, and sage-grouse winter 

and winter yearlong range.1 No treatment unless beneficial to pronghorn, mule deer, 

and sage-grouse. 

Crucial elk winter range and winter yearlong range.1 Maximum of 40% of sagebrush type treated at any 

time. 

Pronghorn, elk, moose, mule deer, and sage-grouse 

winter, winter/yearlong, and summer habitat.1 Maximum of 20% of sagebrush type treated at any 

time. 

1

Percentage restrictions would be applied to individual fire management units as designated on Map 2-15. Restricted wildlife 

ranges are depicted in Chapter 3 on Maps 3-19 and 3-20. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 1 

Pinedale RMP 2-45 

Basic Assumptions for Table 2-4: 

1. If new information indicates that wildlife would benefit from sagebrush treatment at higher levels 

than indicated through this process, upper levels would be adjusted accordingly. 

2. In cases of seasonal range overlap, the most restrictive constraint would be applied. 

3. When previously treated sagebrush areas return to a sagebrush canopy cover of 25% or greater, 

they would be considered untreated and would be added to the base acreage available for future 

treatment proposals. 

4. Specific project design and mitigation would be developed during the activity planning phase. 

5. Although only game species habitat is specified, consideration for other species associated with 

the sagebrush communities is built into the treatment constraints. 

6. The maximum acreage available for treatment encompasses the entire vegetation type acreage in 

the area. 

Habitat would also be enhanced by other improvements, such as development of water facilities. During 

development and implementation of activity plans (for example, allotment, timber, watershed, or wildlife 

habitat management plans), consideration for habitat improvement needs and locations would be 

included. Waterfowl habitat would be considered for enhancement through improvements. Specifically 

the Upper Green River HMP and East Front Aquatic HMP update would provide waterfowl and fisheries 

habitat improvement projects. Road closures could be imposed to protect fisheries and elk habitat. The 

WGFD conducted a study of big game response to oil and gas development on the Riley Ridge natural 

gas project area. Findings and recommendations from this study are used in considering future 

development of minerals on big game ranges. 

Predator control programs would be coordinated with the USDA and conducted in accordance with the 

Rock Springs District Animal Damage Control Plan. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Rock Creek ACEC Management Goal/Objective 

Protect the Rock Creek drainage to assure quality aquatic habitat for the sensitive CRCT and to provide 

crucial winter range for a portion of the Piney elk herd. 

Beaver Creek ACEC Management Goal/Objective 

Assure quality aquatic habitat for the sensitive CRCT and protect elk calving habitat. 

Rock Creek ACEC Management Actions 

The entire ACEC area (Map 2-16) and the Deadline-Graphite elk winter range area (approximately 

17,100 acres) would be deferred from mineral leasing until a mineral and wildlife evaluation was 

completed. 

The entire ACEC would be managed as a ROW avoidance or exclusion area, where ROW would not be 

allowed unless a supporting environmental analysis indicated that the action met the objective for the 

ACEC, minimal impacts would occur, and/or the action would benefit the CRCT or elk habitat. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 1 Final EIS 

2-46 Pinedale RMP 

Management Actions within the Rock Creek Watershed (Drainage) Area of the ACEC 

Geophysical exploration activities in this area would be restricted to portable methods only. The use of 

explosive charges would be prohibited if analysis determined that unacceptable adverse resource impacts 

would result. 

If analysis indicates this level of protection is necessary, a withdrawal from mineral location and surface 

entry would be pursued. 

Livestock grazing and related improvements would continue to be allowed if no adverse effects occur to 

the Rock Creek drainage. 

No forest management activities would be allowed within the drainage. 

The drainage would be managed as a Class I VRM area and would be closed to ORV use, including overthe-snow vehicles. 

Management Actions in the Remainder of the Rock Creek ACEC (Outside the Rock Creek 

Watershed) 

Approximately 1,000 acres of the ACEC (that portion outside the drainage) would be evaluated to 

identify any locations where surface occupancy could be allowed. Geophysical exploration activities in 

this area would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and would be restricted if analysis determines that 

unacceptable adverse impacts would occur to the water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation, or visual 

values in the area. 

This portion of the ACEC would be open to exploration and development of locatable minerals. A plan of 

operations would be required for any locatable minerals activities in the area. 

This portion of the ACEC would be managed as a Class II VRM area, and ORV use would be limited to 

existing roads and trails with seasonal restrictions to protect wintering wildlife (Appendix 12). 

Beaver Creek ACEC Management Actions 

The area (Map 2-16) would be open for consideration of mineral leasing and related activities. 

All vehicle use, including geophysical exploration vehicles, would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

The area would be closed to the use of explosive charges if analysis determined that unacceptable adverse 

impacts would occur to the water quality, fisheries, wildlife recreation, or visual values in the area. 

The Beaver Creek ACEC would be managed to maintain, improve, or restore riparian habitat conditions. 

The ACEC would be managed as a Class III VRM area. 

A detailed activity plan would be prepared to establish guidelines for uses that could affect or jeopardize 

habitat quality for the CRCT and elk calving. Management prescriptions in the activity plan would 

include identifying specific transportation routes to reduce the potential for spills of toxic materials and 

needs for seasonal use or other types of restrictions, in compliance with the decisions stated above. 

Surface disturbance within 1,000 feet of streams and on slopes of 25% or greater would be prohibited. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 1 

Pinedale RMP 2-47 

Partial timber cutting would be allowed provided that no adverse impacts would occur to the CRCT. 

Clearcutting or road construction within 1,000 feet of Beaver Creek would not be allowed. Exceptions 

would be granted only if additional site-specific analysis verified that such actions would not adversely 

affect crucial CRCT habitat. 

Roads and ROWs would follow existing alignments unless their design criteria would preclude adverse 

impacts on the trout and elk calving habitat. 

Wilderness 

Management Goal/Objective 

Proposed wilderness areas would be managed for wilderness values in accordance with the decision of 

Congress. 

Management Actions 

See Section 2.3.15 for WSA management actions common to all alternatives. 

Surface Disturbance Restriction 

The surface disturbance restrictions are necessary to protect certain sensitive resources and areas from 

adverse effects of surface disturbing activities and human presence. The restrictions include the various 

management actions developed in and analyzed for the RMP. These restrictions would apply to all types 

of activities involving surface disturbance or human presence impacts and would be applied in accordance 

with the guidelines described in Appendix 2. The guidelines include, where applicable, proposals for 

waiver, exception, or modification, based on analysis for individual actions. This would allow for 

situations where a surface disturbing activity could actually benefit sensitive resources and for those 

occasions when analysis determined that an activity would not adversely affect those resources. The 

Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health would apply. 

Appendix 2 would be used, as appropriate, to condition development activities in all programs where 

surface disturbing activities would occur and where the objectives of the RMP include the protection of 

important resource values. On a case-by-case basis, activities would be conditioned by any one or more of 

the mitigations in Appendix 2 to avoid or minimize impacts on other important resource values and 

sensitive areas. Use restrictions (for examples, dates or distances) could be made more or less stringent 

depending on the needs of specific situations. The restrictions identified under the various resource 

programs are complementary to the standards in Appendix 2 and are not all-inclusive. They represent 

both actual requirements applicable to specific circumstances and examples of requirements that would be 

considered and that could be applied, if necessary. Additional restrictions could be placed on surface 

disturbing activities as necessary. 

The mitigations identified in the RMP would serve to provide a degree of protection for affected 

resources, not to unnecessarily restrict activities. The RMP would provide the flexibility for modifications 

or exceptions to restrictions in specific circumstances where a restriction is determined not to apply or is 

not needed to achieve a desired objective. 

Surface disturbance is characterized by the removal of vegetative cover and soil materials. Where actual 

excavation did not occur, activities could be allowed to occur with less stringent limitations if the 

objectives and purpose for the surface disturbance restrictions were met. Timber harvesting within 500 

feet of streams or riparian areas and on slopes greater than 25% are examples of situations for which less 
Chapter 2—Alternative 1 Final EIS 

2-48 Pinedale RMP 

stringent application of the standards mitigation guidelines (Appendix 2) would apply. These less 

stringent guidelines would apply to those timber harvest activities, such as tree cutting, skidding, and 

slash disposal, that did not fully remove vegetative cover and soil materials. In the past, allowing these 

activities within a 100-foot streamside buffer distance and on slopes greater than 25% have proven 

effective. However, road construction or staging/loading areas for logging equipment would not meet the 

less stringent definition and would be subject to the standard requirements of 500 feet and 25% slope. 

The mitigations prescribed for federal mineral development on split estate lands would apply only to the 

development of the federal minerals. These mitigations would not dictate the surface owners’ 

management of their lands. The mitigations present restrictions on only those surface activities conducted 

for purposes of developing the federal minerals and that are permitted, licensed, or otherwise approved by 

BLM. 

Necessary protection from surface disturbing activities would be provided for wintering wildlife on 

approximately 636,390 acres of crucial and noncrucial winter range (Table 2-31, p. 2-166; Map 3-20). 

Seasonal restrictions would be incorporated into all land use authorizations where appropriate. This would 

include approximately 13,440 acres of noncrucial elk winter range in the Bench Corral area, 

approximately 3,400 acres of noncrucial elk winter range in the Miller Mountain area, and approximately 

12,800 acres of noncrucial deer winter range in the Mesa area. 

No surface occupancy would be allowed on elk feedgrounds. Exceptions could be allowed if analysis 

indicated that proposed activities would either benefit or cause no adverse impacts on the elk. Further 

public input would be required for exceptions that were not designed to specifically benefit elk. 

No activity or surface disturbance would be allowed in elk calving areas during periods of use, usually 

between May 1 and June 30. 

Sage-grouse nesting areas would be protected in accordance with the Wyoming BLM mitigation 

guidelines (Appendix 2). Surface occupancy or use, including, but not limited to, the drilling of wells; the 

construction of well pads, roads, pipelines, or other types of ROWs; and/or the installation of permanent 

or high-profile structures (i.e., buildings, storage tanks, overhead power lines, etc.) within one-quarter 

mile of a sage-grouse lek (strutting ground) would be restricted or prohibited unless the operator and 

Authorized Officer arrived at an acceptable plan to mitigate anticipated impacts. Activity would generally 

be restricted to existing roads and trails. Other activities could be allowed if environmental analysis 

indicated that nesting sage-grouse concentrations would not be adversely affected. Activity between the 

hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. would not be allowed within approximately one-quarter mile of leks 

(during strutting season). No surface disturbance or occupancy would be allowed within one-quarter mile 

of leks. 

Seasonal restrictions would be applied to active raptor nests. Priority for further inventory of raptor nest 

locations would be given to areas where activities and surface disturbance were proposed. 

No surface disturbance would be allowed within 500 feet of riparian habitat, wetland, and/or live water 

unless a high potential for successful rehabilitation existed and/or impacts would be temporary in nature. 

Guidance is supplied in Appendix 2. 

No surface disturbance would be allowed on the Upper Green River SRMA, except as identified in a 

management plan for that area. 

No surface disturbance would be allowed within one-quarter mile or the visual horizon (whichever is 

closer) of contributing segments of the historic trails (Map 2-1). 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 1 

Pinedale RMP 2-49 

Waste disposal facilities (for example, drilling fluid pits, solid waste, and sanitary facilities) would not be 

authorized on flood plains, wetlands, and related riparian zones. 

Surface disturbance would be minimized in crucial watersheds, such as Soap Holes Basin and Tip Top, 

with emphasis on reducing soil erosion and sediment and salinity contributions to the Green River Basin 

water system. Surface disturbing activities would be appropriately restricted in accordance with the

Standard Mitigation Guidelines for Surface Disturbing Activities and standard practices applied to surface 

disturbing activities (Appendices 2 and 5). 

No surface occupancy would be allowed on cultural sites 48SU301, 48SU350, and 48LN300 or on 

developed and semi-developed recreation sites. No exceptions would be allowed without further public 

input. This limitation is not intended to prohibit surface occupancy in those portions of the NSO areas that 

occur outside the viewshed of the cultural property and that contain no cultural properties. 

Surface disturbances would not be allowed within one-quarter mile of developed and semi-developed 

recreation sites unless activities were determined to be compatible with recreation objectives for the area. 

No surface occupancy would be allowed in the Rock Creek drainage within the Rock Creek ACEC 

(approximately 4,200 acres). The only exceptions would be activities proposed to benefit the CRCT. No 

exceptions would be allowed without further public input. 

Surface disturbance would not be allowed within 1,000 feet of streams or on slopes of 25% or greater 

within the Beaver Creek ACEC. 
Chapter 2—Oil & Gas Management Areas Final EIS 

2-50 Pinedale RMP 

2.5.2 Oil and Gas Management Areas for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would assign lands to one of the three designations described in this section. 

Intensively Developed Oil and Gas Fields 

Emphasis in these 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). Management objectives and actions 

described in the Pinedale RMP for each alternative would apply. 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. To enlarge an Intensively Developed Field, the expansion area would have to be adjacent to 

the field and under valid oil and gas lease with stipulations allowing surface occupancy and development. 

Intensively Developed Fields would only be considered for expansion when surface development reaches 

four surface locations per 640-acre section, with additional well density required to efficiently and 

adequately produce the gas or oil resource. 

Traditional Leasing Areas 

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/development of an 

oil or gas reservoir reaches a down-hole well density of one well every 160 acres and a surface density of 

four well pads per 640-acre section, new areas could be considered for conversion to Intensively 

Developed Field. Consideration for conversion would depend on (1) a geology and reservoir analysis 

determination that additional well density is needed to efficiently and adequately produce the gas or oil 

resource; (2) that surface resources can be satisfactorily mitigated; and (3) that a project-specific 

environmental documentation is prepared to analyze impacts and to determine operating methods, 

mitigation, and BMPs to be used in the efficient and comprehensive development of the field. 

As gas or oil fields expand or exploration delineates a larger area, the Intensively Developed Field could 

be enlarged as appropriate. To enlarge an Intensively Developed Field, the expansion would have to be 

adjacent to the field and under valid oil and gas lease with stipulations allowing surface occupancy and 

development. Intensively Developed Fields would only be considered for expansion area when surface 

development reaches four surface locations per 640-acre section, when a geology and reservoir evaluation 

determines that additional well density is required to efficiently and adequately produce the gas or oil 

resource, and when impacts to surface resources can be satisfactorily mitigated. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Oil & Gas Management Areas 

Pinedale RMP 2-51 

Unavailable Areas 

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 nonsurface-disturbing activities, and maintenance and improvement of current resource conditions. These 

areas are comprised of WSAs, which are nondiscretionary closure areas for oil and gas leasing, and other 

areas that would be administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing. No new leases would be offered. 

As existing oil and gas leases expire in Unavailable Areas, they would not be re-offered for lease. 

A one-half mile NSO area would be established in some areas where the Unavailable Areas abut lands or 

mineral estate not managed by BLM. This one-half mile NSO “buffer” area would provide a means for 

dealing with drainage of resources from BLM mineral estate. The one-half mile NSO area should make 

leasing within the Unavailable Areas unnecessary. 

Oil and gas operators would have the right to explore existing leases. Exploration of existing leases could 

result in a discovery. When exploration/development of a newly discovered oil or gas resource reaches a 

down-hole well density of one well every 160 acres and a surface density of four well pads per 640-acre 

section, new areas could be considered for conversion to Intensively Developed Field. Consideration for 

conversion would depend on (1) a geology and reservoir analysis determination that additional well 

density is needed to efficiently and adequately produce the gas or oil resource; (2) that surface resources 

can be satisfactorily mitigated; and (3) that a project-specific environmental documentation is prepared to 

analyze impacts and to determine operating methods, mitigation, and BMPs to be used in comprehensive 

development of the field. 

As gas or oil fields expand or exploration reaches beyond the delineated area, the Intensively Developed 

Field could be enlarged when appropriate. To enlarge an Intensively Developed Field, the expansion area 

would have to be adjacent to the field and under valid oil and gas lease with stipulations allowing surface 

occupancy and development. Intensively Developed Fields would only be considered for expansion when 

surface development reaches four surface locations per 640-acre section when a geology and reservoir 

evaluation determines that additional well density required to efficiently and adequately produce the gas 

or oil resource, and when impacts to surface resource can be satisfactorily mitigated. 

Existing oil and gas leases would remain in effect until they expire. Upon lease expiration, areas in the 

Intensively Developed Fields and Traditional Leasing Areas could be nominated for lease again, and new 

leases could be issued. In the Unavailable Areas, no nominations for new leases would be considered. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 2 Final EIS 

2-52 Pinedale RMP 

2.5.3 Alternative 2 

Air Quality Management 

Management Goal 

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. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Maintain concentrations of criteria pollutants associated with management actions in 

compliance with applicable state and federal Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS).

Objective 2 Maintain concentrations of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pollutants 

associated with management actions in compliance with the applicable increment. 

Objective 3 Reduce visibility-impairing pollutants in accordance with the reasonable progress goals and 

time frames established within the State of Wyoming’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Objective 4 Reduce atmospheric deposition pollutants to levels below generally accepted levels of 

concern (LOC) and levels of acceptable change (LAC). 

Actions (these actions apply to all four objectives)

a. BLM would cooperate in the collection of basic climate and meteorological data from remote 

automatic weather stations. 

b. BLM would cooperate with the EPA and State of Wyoming and collaborate with the USFS in 

monitoring for atmospheric deposition (acid rain) and its impacts on the Class I airsheds of the 

Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas. 

c. Special requirements such as dust abatement, alternative power sources, and BMPs to alleviate air 

quality impacts would be included on a case-by-case basis in use authorizations within the scope of 

BLM’s authority. 

d. Prescribed burns would be managed to comply with WDEQ-Air Quality Division (AQD) smoke 

management rules and regulations. 

e. BLM would continue to participate in State of the Atmosphere modeling to assess cumulative 

changes to air quality over time. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Management Goal 

Protect and preserve significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate use 

by present and future generations. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 2 

Pinedale RMP 2-53 

Management Objective and Actions 

Objective 1 Protect NRHP-eligible cultural sites and national historic trails. 

Actions

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). 

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). 

Forestry 

Management Goal 

Manage forest and woodland stands (except stands identified in the Management Common to All 

Alternatives) to achieve a sustainable flow of commercial forest products to the community. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Provide an average annual allowable sale quantity in forestlands (Douglas fir, subalpine fir, 

spruce, and lodgepole pine; 31,590 total acres) of 2,400 hundred cubic feet (CCF) (1.2 MMBF). 

Actions

a. An average of approximately 300 acres of forest would be treated per year. 

b. Tree thinning would be conducted on approximately 50 acres per year of young stands of trees to 

meet forest health and forest growth objectives. 

Objective 2 Manage woodland ecosystem areas (aspen, aspen/conifer, cottonwood, and other woodland 

ecosystems; 15,280 acres) to support commercial activities and resource objectives of the vegetation and 

wildlife programs. 

Actions

a. Sale of forest products would be emphasized while meeting the objectives of HFRA and wildlife 

habitat and livestock management objectives. 

b. An average of 250 acres of woodlands could undergo vegetation treatment per year. 

Objective 3 Restore or emulate natural/historic forest cycles on the forested lands and woodlands within 

the Scab Creek and Lake Mountain WSAs. 

Action 

a. Prescribed or wildland fire could be used to achieve vegetation alteration in the WSAs. Mechanical 

surface disturbing activities would be prohibited, and no forest products would be removed from 

WSAs. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 2 Final EIS 

2-54 Pinedale RMP 

Objective 4 Using HFRA guidelines, maintain and/or restore identified old growth stands. 

Action

a. All stands would be analyzed for old growth characteristics prior to entry by using existing or new 

inventory methods and analysis of previous forest management activities. Stands meeting old growth 

standards for their vegetation type would be managed to maintain old growth characteristics on a 

landscape scale. Connectivity of existing old growth areas would be maintained at appropriate 

locations and distribution levels. Old growth stands would be maintained using appropriate 

mechanical and prescribed fire tools to maintain pre-suppression composition, structure, and function. 

Lands and Realty Management 

Management Goal 

Provide for use of public lands in accordance with federal regulations where compatible with other 

resources. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Process land tenure adjustments that would benefit or achieve the goals of other resource 

programs. 

Action

a. Of the 6,300 acres that meet FLPMA disposal criteria for sale, 5,000 acres would be available 

(Appendix 14 and Map 2-17). 

Objective 2 Respond to community needs for expansion and economic development. 

Actions

a. Proposals for land tenure adjustments (Map 2-17) would be considered on a case-by-case basis and 

according to the criteria in Appendix 13. Before any land tenure adjustments were made, the 

appropriate level of environmental analysis would be conducted on the proposal. Riparian, wetland, 

and aquatic resources would be considered for sale or exchange. 

b. Acquisition of nonfederal lands could be considered if proposed by willing parties. 

c. DLE petition applications would be processed and patents authorized in irrigable, arid areas 

suitable for agricultural use for the purpose of reclamation, irrigation, and cultivation. 

d. Trespass within the planning area would be resolved. BLM would pursue the resolution of 

occupancy, mineral, or other trespass to the benefit of BLM and the public. 

Objective 3 Process ROW applications in a timely manner, with priority given to large energy-related 

ROWs. 

Actions

a. Linear ROW (for example, pipelines, power lines, and roads) would be routed to avoid undue and 

unnecessary degradation, taking into account point of origin, point of destination, and purpose and 

need of the project. 

b. Common ROW routes (“corridors”) would be designated where appropriate (Map 3-10). 

c. Utility facilities would be restricted to existing routes and designated corridors where practicable. 

New corridors could be established as new oil and gas fields are developed. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 2 

Pinedale RMP 2-55 

d. Linear ROW crossings in 100-year flood plains, wetlands, and riparian areas would be allowed 

(Map 3-14). 

e. Exceptions to ROW avoidance and exclusion areas (Map 2-18; Table 2-27, p. 2-160) would be 

allowed if impacts could be adequately mitigated. 

f. ROW for communication sites would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Emphasis would be on 

development on already-existing multiple use sites rather than establishing new sites. 

g. Alternative energy development proposals would be permitted throughout the field office where 

not prohibited by law or in conflict with Land Use Plan decisions. 

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 restricted to VRM Class IV areas. 

3. Disposal pits would be bonded to an amount determined by an Authorized Officer. 

Livestock Grazing Management 

Management Goals 

To the extent possible while maximizing energy and mineral production, maintain livestock grazing; 

maintain forage production and ecological conditions to benefit livestock, wildlife habitat, watershed 

values, and riparian areas; and achieve proper functioning condition as a minimum standard of stability on 

all riparian areas. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Meet the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Actions

a. Suspended AUMs (55,175 AUMs; Table A20-1) would be activated. The total active AUMs for the 

field office would be 157,308. Increases would occur where they would not contribute to nonachievement of land health standards, consistent with 43 CFR §4180. 

b. Grazing systems would emphasize livestock production. 

c. Livestock water developments would be allowed wherever necessary to facilitate livestock 

operations. 

d. Approximately 21,000 acres of unallocated public lands would be allocated for livestock grazing in 

accordance with RMP goals and objectives. 

e. Developed recreation sites (100 acres) and exclosures (approximately 75 acres) would be open to 

livestock grazing. 

f. Livestock grazing and related improvements would be allowed in the Rock Creek ACEC 

Watershed. 

g. Mineral supplement blocks for livestock and wildlife use would be placed where necessary to meet 

management objectives. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 2 Final EIS 

2-56 Pinedale RMP 

Minerals Management 

Management Goal 

Provide opportunities for mineral extraction and energy exploration and development to provide resources 

to meet national and local needs. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 (Intensively Developed Fields) Make federal lands and minerals within the existing Jonah, 

Pinedale Anticline, Big Piney-LaBarge, Deer Hills, Castle Creek, Riley Ridge, and South Piney oil and 

gas fields available for intensive oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and production (Map 2-7). 

Actions

a. Issue new oil and gas leases with the standard lease stipulations and appropriate NSO and 

controlled surface use (CSU) stipulations as specifically prescribed in the Cultural Resources, 

Wildlife, and Recreation sections of this alternative. Timing Limitation Stipulations (TLS) would not 

be applied. 

b. A blanket exception would be issued for all existing leases (173,200 acres) in the Jonah, Pinedale 

Anticline, Big Piney-LaBarge, Deer Hills, Castle Creek, Riley Ridge, and South Piney oil and gas 

fields to allow year-round drilling and development operations until these fields are fully developed. 

This exception would not be applied to seasonal (timing limitation) protection measures for T&E 

species and migratory bird species unless analysis demonstrates that these species would not be 

affected or that anticipated impacts are mitigated per USFWS requirements. 

c. BMPs and operating standards would be applied to mitigate impacts to sensitive habitats and other 

resources (Appendices 3 and 5) to the extent possible and practicable. 

d. Accelerated reclamation would be implemented to reestablish impacted habitats. 

e. On-lease water disposal pits would be considered case by case, provided the proposal meets the 

water disposal pit requirements in other sections of this alternative. 

Objective 2 (Traditional Leasing Areas) Make federal lands and minerals outside the Jonah, Pinedale 

Anticline, Big Piney-LaBarge, Deer Hills, Castle Creek, Riley Ridge, and South Piney oil and gas fields 

and outside the WSAs available for oil and gas leasing exploration, development, and production (Map 2-

7). 

Actions

a. Mineral leases, including those for minerals other than oil and gas, would be subject to the same 

resource constraints as established for other surface disturbing and disruptive activities in this 

alternative. 

b. Existing oil and gas leases (475,590 acres) would be managed under their existing lease terms and 

stipulations. 

1. Oil and gas activities would be regulated to mitigate impacts to important wildlife 

habitats, including big game crucial winter ranges and greater sage-grouse habitats. 

2. BMPs and operating standards would be applied to mitigate impacts to sensitive 

habitats and other resources (Appendices 3 and 5). 

c. Post-lease actions (APDs, Sundry Notices) would be managed under restrictions and COAs 

developed through the appropriate level of additional environmental analysis. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 2 

Pinedale RMP 2-57 

d. Lands in these areas could convert to Intensively Developed Fields when bottom-hole well density 

exceeds one well per 160 acres and a surface density of four well pads per 640-acre section. 

Consideration for conversion would depend on (1) a geology and reservoir analysis determination that 

additional well density is needed to efficiently and adequately produce the gas or oil resource; (2) that 

surface resources can be satisfactorily mitigated; and (3) that a project-specific environmental 

documentation is prepared to analyze impacts and to determine operating methods, mitigation, and 

BMPs to be used in the efficient and comprehensive development of the field. 

e. On-lease water disposal pits would be considered case by case provided the proposal meets the 

water disposal pit requirements in other sections of this alternative. 

Objective 3 (Unavailable Areas) Comply with nondiscretionary closures to mineral leasing in the 

established WSAs (Map 2-7). 

Actions

a. No new oil and gas leases would be available in these areas. 

b. Existing oil and gas leases (1,670 acres) would be managed under their existing lease terms and 

stipulations. 

1. Oil and gas activities would be regulated to mitigate impacts to important wildlife 

habitats, including big game crucial winter ranges and greater sage-grouse habitats. 

2. BMPs and operating standards would be applied to mitigate impacts to sensitive 

habitats and other resources (Appendices 3 and 5). 

3. Post-lease actions (APDs, Sundry Notices) would be managed under restrictions and 

COAs developed through the appropriate level of additional environmental analysis. 

4. On-lease water disposal pits would not be allowed. 

Objective 4 Provide opportunities for geophysical and geologic data acquisition while mitigating impacts 

to important resource values. 

Actions

a. Geophysical data gathering methods that involve only casual use of the surface (as defined by 43 

CFR §3150) would be permitted throughout the planning area. 

b. The use of surface and/or above-ground (Poulter shot) explosive charges for geophysical 

exploration would be analyzed and mitigation developed case by case. 

c. Geophysical activities in designated NSO areas would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

d. Geophysical operations on BLM-administered surface within Native American TCP areas and 

within one-quarter mile of rock art sites would be restricted to designated roads and trails or nonvehicle-based methods and would be subject to Native American consultation. 

e. Geophysical operations on post-FLPMA leased or unleased BLM-administered surface within the 

Scab Creek and Lake Mountain WSAs would be considered on a case-by-case basis, provided the 

operations meet the requirements of the Interim Management Policy for Land under Wilderness 

Review (BLM Handbook H-8550-1). Geophysical operations on pre-FLPMA leased BLMadministered surface within the Lake Mountain WSA would be allowed pursuant to site-specific 

NEPA analysis and to pre-FLPMA requirements in H-8550-1. 

f. Geophysical operations would be allowed on BLM-administered surface within the Trapper’s Point 

ACEC and within the established SRMAs, provided the operations are conducted via non-vehiclebased methods or on designated roads and trails. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 2 Final EIS 

2-58 Pinedale RMP 

g. Geophysical activities would be allowed in developed recreation sites, provided the recreation site 

is not occupied and operations are conducted on existing roads and trails. 

Objective 5 Make coal resources available for leasing and development. 

Action

a. Decisions on lands acceptable for leasing consideration for coal development would be made after 

an application is received and the coal screening process is conducted. 

Objective 6 Make lands not withdrawn or segregated from mineral entry available for locatable mineral 

exploration and development (1,199,280 acres). 

Action

a. Locatable mineral activities would be subject to regulatory requirements; resource constraints 

would be based on the undue and unnecessary degradation standard. 

Objective 7 Make salable mineral resources available for development. 

Actions

a. Salable mineral activities would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

b. The planning area would be open to mineral material disposals with the exception of WSAs 

(21,200 acres) (Map 2-19). 

Objective 8 Make other leasable minerals (phosphate, sodium [trona], and geothermal steam) available 

for exploration and development. 

Actions

a. Geothermal leasing and development would be considered and managed under the same objectives, 

management actions, and restrictions, and in the same areas identified as being available for Intensive 

Development and Traditional Leasing Areas for oil and gas leasing and development in this 

alternative. 

b. Management of phosphate, sodium, oil shale, and geothermal steam would be the same as for 

Alternative 1. 

c. Should interest in other leasable minerals materialize in the future, leasing would be considered on 

a case-by-case basis, and the RMP would be amended as appropriate and necessary. 

Paleontology and Natural History 

Management Goals 

Protect significant fossils and known paleontological resources from damage or destruction and facilitate 

suitable scientific, educational, and recreational uses of fossils. 

Management Objective and Action 

Objective 1 Known and newly discovered paleontological resources would be managed to maintain 

current condition. 

Action

a. Paleontological resources would be managed without designating any area for special designation 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 2 

Pinedale RMP 2-59 

or management based on paleontological resources, unless required for protection of paleontological 

values. 

Recreation and Visitor Services Management 

Management Goal 

Provide substantial personal, community, economic, and environmental benefits to local residents and 

visitors through recreational uses of the public lands. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Manage recreation use to limit resource damage. 

Actions

a. A 16-day campsite occupancy limit would apply throughout the planning area. This occupancy 

limit applies to a 5-mile radius of the campsite. 

b. Surface occupancy within one-quarter mile of developed recreation sites would be prohibited. 

Objective 2 Promote commercial, competitive events and organized group activities where appropriate 

and compatible with natural resource management objectives. 

Action

a. Additional SRPs with no restrictions on use levels for commercial river use on the Green and New 

Fork Rivers would be available. 

Objective 3 Manage Special Recreation Management Areas to provide for current and future recreation 

opportunities. Refer to Recreation Management Zone (RMZ) specific objectives below. The Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum would be used for each SRMA as a guide to maintain, promote, or modify 

recreation activities, settings, and experiences (Appendix 16). 

b. Scab Creek SRMA—The Scab Creek SRMA would be retained at (18,460 acres) and would 

contain two RMZs . The Rural Country Zone would include the BLM access road with trailhead and 

other visitor facilities. The Back Country Zone would include the Scab Creek WSA and other areas at 

least one-half mile from any roads or constructed facilities. 

1. Recreation/Tourism Market: The market for the Rural Country Zone would be 

Destination and the Back Country would be Community consisting of residents, national 

and international visitors.

2. The Market Segment for the Rural Country Zone would be for improved access and 

full service camping/recreational vehicle (RV) amenities and expanded area day-use 

activities. The Back Country Zone would provide nonmotorized backcountry recreation 

activities such as backpacking and other adventure activities that require a degree of selfreliance. 

3. The Management Objective for the Scab Creek SRMA would be to manage each Zone 

to provide opportunities for the public to achieve targeted, high-quality recreation 

activities and experiences in a substantially natural setting, which would produce 

significant benefits for the visiting public. The SRMA would be managed with a focus on 

accommodating tourism and expected growth in the local area. Emphasis would be 

placed on structured recreation opportunities with expanded recreation facility 

development that promotes expanded use and provides visitor amenities commensurate 
Chapter 2—Alternative 2 Final EIS 

2-60 Pinedale RMP 

with the Rural setting (Table 2-5 and Table 2-6). 

4. Recreation Management: A RAMP would be prepared. Appropriate use levels for 

permitted and non-permitted recreation activities would be established in the RAMP. All 

developed facilities would conform to Rural Country Setting Character. Facility 

Guidelines: Facilities would provide for long-term, day-use, and back-country staging 

activities. Management of the Back Country Zone would be commensurate with 

wilderness values. 

5. Market Strategy: For the Rural Country Zone, onsite market strategy would be to use 

standard BLM venues for disseminating recreational user information and regulations 

such as informational, directional, and regulatory signs at the trailhead/staging area. 

Brochures and publications would be used for greater information distribution, regional 

BLM publications, and Internet technologies to promote private sector advertisement of 

area opportunities and user information. The Market Strategy for the Back Country Zone 

would be to provide basic user information at trailheads relative to access, regulations, 

and resource protection. The provision of onsite information and directional signs would 

be prohibited unless such facilities complied with the BLM Interim Management Policy 

for Lands Under Wilderness Review (within the WSA). 

6. Recreation Monitoring: BLM personnel and volunteers would occasionally monitor 

both zones. Visitor use surveys would be implemented to determine whether targeted 

outcomes are being achieved. 

7. Recreation Administration: Cost recovery would be implemented to maintain visitor 

services and facilities through management as a U.S. Fee Area as appropriate; no limit 

would apply on issuance of SRPs for commercial competitive and group activities 

pending completion of the RAMP. Camping would be limited to a 16-day length of stay. 

The WSA would be closed to motorized vehicles. Outside the WSA, OHV use would be 

limited to designated roads and trails; VRM Class II objectives would apply for the entire 

SRMA. The WSA would be administratively unavailable for fluid mineral leasing. The 

SRMA outside of the WSA would be available for fluid mineral leasing. 

Table 2-5. Targeted Outcomes—Scab Creek SRMA 

Activities Experiences Benefits 

RURAL COUNTRY ZONE 

Camping/day use 

Horse packing/equestrian 

Hunting 

Viewing wildlife and natural 

scenery 

Hunting 

Relaxing physically 

Engaging in preferred activities in 

preferred settings with family and 

friends 

Personal: 

• Nature and aesthetic 

appreciation 

• Personal health and fitness 

Community: 

• Improved perceived quality of life 

• Family bonding/better family life 

Environmental: 

• Better care and stewardship of 

• Wind River Front 

Economic: 

• Contribution to tourism and local 

economy 

• Recognition of area as a tourist 

destination 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 2 

Pinedale RMP 2-61 

Activities Experiences Benefits 

BACK COUNTRY ZONE 

Viewing wildlife and natural scenery 

Backpacking 

Pack stock oriented recreation and 

wilderness camping 

Hunting 

Rock climbing 

Viewing wildlife/natural scenery 

Engaging in preferred activities 

with family and friends 

Developing physically challenging 

back country skills 

Wilderness experience 

Personal: 

• Nature/aesthetic appreciation 

• Social bonding/cohesion/ 

cooperation 

• Personal health and fitness 

• Self-reliance 

Community: 

• Improved perceived quality of life 

• Family bonding/better family life 

Environmental: 

• Better care of Wind River Front 

and enhancement of wilderness 

experience 

Economic: 

• Contribution to tourism and local 

economy 

• Increased attractiveness of 

region as a place to live 

Table 2-6. Prescribed Setting Character—Scab Creek SRMA 

Physical Social Administrative 

RURAL COUNTRY ZONE 

Remoteness: Rural Country 

Naturalness: Rural Country 

Facilities: Rural Country 

Contacts: Rural Country 

Group Size: Rural Country 

Evidence of Use: Rural Country 

Types of Encounters: Rural Country 

Mechanized Use: Rural Country 

Visitor Services: Rural Country 

User Fees: Rural Country 

Management Controls: Rural 

Country 

Domestic Animals: Rural Country 

BACK COUNTRY ZONE 

Remoteness: Back Country 

Naturalness: Back Country 

Facilities: Back Country 

Contacts: Front Country 

Group Size: Middle Country 

Evidence of Use: Back Country 

Types of Encounters: Back Country 

Mechanized Use: Back Country 

Visitor Services: Middle to Back 

Country 

User Fees: Back Country 

Management Controls: Back 

Country 

Domestic Animals: Back Country 

c. The Upper Green River SRMA, would be retained at (5,160 acres) and managed as a Rural 

Country Zone consisting of the Warren Bridge Campground and adjoining Warren Bridge River 

Access complex (9-mile river segment above the campground). 

1. Recreation/Tourism Markets: The Upper Green River SRMA would be a Destination 

Market. Users would be residents, national, and international visitors.

2. The Market Segment for the Rural Country Zone would be easy and contiguous river 

access where visitors of nearly all abilities can enjoy a myriad of river- and upland-based 

recreation activities such as float and wade fishing, camping, float boating, hunting, 

hiking, equestrian use, wildlife observation, scenery, and motorized activities. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 2 Final EIS 

2-62 Pinedale RMP 

3. Management Objective: The Upper Green River SRMA would be managed to provide 

opportunities for the public to achieve targeted recreation activities and experiences, 

which produce significant benefits for the visiting public (see below). 

The RMZ would be managed to provide a 50% or better realization of targeted benefits. 

The SRMA would be managed with a focus on accommodating tourism and expected 

regional growth. Emphasis would be placed on structured recreation opportunities with 

expanded recreation facility development that promotes expanded use and provides 

visitor amenities commensurate with the Rural setting (Table 2-7 and Table 2-8). 

4. Recreation Management: A RAMP would be developed. Use limits on commercial 

SRPs would apply until appropriate use levels for permitted and non-permitted recreation 

activities are established in the RAMP. Facility Guidelines: Rural Country Setting 

Characteristics would apply. 

5. Market Strategy: Standard BLM venues would be utilized to disseminate recreation 

user information. Information would be distributed both onsite and offsite using regional 

BLM publications and Internet technologies to promote private sector advertisement of 

area amenities and user information. Information would be directional, regulatory, and 

interpretive. Emphasis would be placed on encouraging and enhancing tourism. 

6. Recreation Monitoring: BLM personnel would occasionally monitor both zones. 

Visitor use surveys would be administered to determine whether targeted outcomes are 

being achieved. 

7. Recreation Administration: There would be no limit on commercial river guide SRPs. 

Camping would be limited to all other activities subject to the issuance of SRPs would be 

considered. Camping would be limited to a 16-day length of stay. Motorized vehicles 

would be limited to existing roads and trails. VRM Class II objectives would apply (Map 

2-20). The SRMA would be open for fluid mineral leasing and development. The Warren 

Bridge Campground would remain a U.S. Fee Site. To maintain visitor services and 

protect resources, the Warren Bridge River Access area would be recommended for 

authorization as a U.S. Fee Site. 

Table 2-7. Targeted Outcomes—Upper Green River SRMA 

Primary Activities Experiences Benefits 

Float and wade fishing 

Camping 

Hunting 

Being with family and friends 

Relaxing physically 

Enjoying participation in desired 

activities in preferred settings 

Personal: 

• Nature/aesthetic appreciation 

• Stronger ties with family and 

friends 

• Improved physical and mental 

health and well being 

Community/Social: 

• Family bonding 

Environmental: 

• Better appreciation of Green 

River 

Economic: 

• Contributions to local economy 

• Increased job opportunities 

• Recognition of area as a tourist 

destination 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 2 

Pinedale RMP 2-63 

Table 2-8. Prescribed Setting Character—Upper Green River SRMA 

Physical Social Administrative 

Remoteness: Rural Country 

Naturalness: Rural Country 

Facilities: Rural Country 

Contacts: Rural Country 

Group Size: Rural Country 

Types of Encounters: Rural Country 

Personal Gear/Equipment: Rural 

Country 

Evidence of Use: Rural Country 

Mechanized Use: Rural Country 

Visitor Services: Rural Country 

Management Controls: Rural 

Country 

Domestic Animals: Front Country 

Individual User Fees: Rural Country 

d. The Boulder Lake SRMA would be retained (5,790 acres) and managed as a Rural Country 

Recreation Management Zone. The Rural Country Zone developments would consist of the BLM 

access road, boat launch area, restrooms, parking area, two non-fee campgrounds, public information 

facilities, and undeveloped primitive roads and trails. 

1. Recreation/Tourism Market: The market would be Destination, consisting of regional, 

national, and international visitors.

2. The Market Segment for the Rural Country Zone would be a natural appearing 

landscape that provides substantial opportunities to experience lake- and upland-based 

recreation activities such as lake fishing and river wade fishing, boating, hunting, 

camping, equestrian use, cycling, motorized activities, wildlife viewing, and exemplary 

glacial lake viewing. 

3. The Management Objective: Provide a 50% or better realization of targeted benefits. 

The area would be managed with a focus on accommodating tourism and expected 

regional growth. Emphasis would be placed on structured recreation opportunities with 

expanded recreation facility development that promotes expanded use and provides 

visitor amenities commensurate with the rural setting (Table 2-9 and Table 2-10). 

4. Recreation Management: A RAMP would be prepared. Appropriate use levels for 

permitted and non-permitted recreation activities would be established in the RAMP. All 

developed facilities would conform to Rural Country Setting Character. Facility 

Guidelines: Facilities would provide for day and overnight use. 

5. The Market Strategy would be to use standard BLM venues for disseminating 

recreation user information both onsite and offsite, using regional BLM publications and 

Internet technologies. Additional offsite market strategy would be to promote private 

sector advertisement of area opportunities and user information. Information would be 

directional, regulatory, and interpretive. Emphasis would be placed on encouraging and 

enhancing tourism. 

6. Recreation Monitoring: BLM personnel and volunteers would occasionally monitor 

both zones. Visitor use surveys would be implemented to determine whether targeted 

outcomes are being achieved. 

7. Recreation Administration: Cost recovery would be implemented to maintain visitor 

services and facilities through management as a U.S. Fee Area, as appropriate. Pending 

completion of the RAMP, no limit would apply on issuance of SRPs for commercial 

event and group activities. Camping would be limited to a 16-day length of stay. OHV 

use would be limited to existing roads and trails. VRM Class II objectives would apply to 

the SRMA. The entire SRMA would be available for fluid mineral leasing and 

development. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 2 Final EIS 

2-64 Pinedale RMP 

Table 2-9. Targeted Outcomes—Boulder Lake SRMA 

Primary Activities Experiences Benefits 

Boating 

Lake and River Fishing 

Hunting 

Camping 

Viewing Wildlife and Scenery 

Adventure Floating 

Being with family and friends 

Relaxing physically 

Enjoying participation in desired 

activities in preferred settings 

Practicing outdoor skills 

Personal: 

• Nature/aesthetic appreciation 

• Stronger ties with family and 

friends 

• Improved skills for outdoor 

enjoyment 

Community/Social: 

• Improved perceived quality of 

life 

• Family bonding 

Environmental: 

• Better environmental 

stewardship 

• Increased awareness of 

protection and management of 

natural landscapes 

Economic 

• Contributions to local economy 

• Recognition of area as a tourist 

destination 

Table 2-10. Prescribed Setting Character—Boulder Lake SRMA 

Physical Social Administrative 

Remoteness: Rural Country 

Naturalness: Rural Country 

Facilities: Rural Country 

Contacts: Rural Country 

Group Size: Rural Country 

Contacts: Rural Country 

Types of Encounters: Rural Country 

Personal Gear/Equipment: Rural 

Country 

Evidence of Use: Rural Country 

Mechanized Use: Rural Country 

Visitor Services: Rural Country 

Management Controls: Rural 

Country 

Domestic Animals: Front Country 

Individual User Fees: Front Country 

Objective 4 Extensive Recreation Management Area (remainder of the Pinedale Planning Area) 

Provide an array of resource-dependent, dispersed recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, 

motorized use and open space. Management would be extensive rather than intensive. Management 

actions would be custodial in nature and focus on: 

a. The development of new recreation facilities only when necessary to protect human health, safety, 

and natural resource values 

b. The maintenance and enhancement of important public access 

c. The resolution of resource and social conflicts. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 2 

Pinedale RMP 2-65 

Soils Management 

Management Goal 

Prevent or mitigate impacts on soil stability, productivity, and water infiltration to prevent accelerated 

erosion and provide for optimal plant growth. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Reclaim or mitigate impacts of erosion from past surface disturbing activities within 5 years 

of RMP implementation. 

Action

a. Work with state and local communities, bonding companies, and operators to achieve the objective. 

Objective 2 Ensure that all newly disturbed areas are successfully reclaimed. 

Action

a. Mitigation would be applied in all areas to limit soil erosion and related undesirable conditions. 

Transportation, Access, and Travel Management 

Management Goals 

Provide access for approved public land uses consistent with public health and safety and other resource 

value concerns. 

Provide public use opportunities where compatible with other resource values. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Provide needed and appropriate ingress, egress, and access routes to and across public lands 

for authorized uses. 

Actions

a. Transportation planning would be completed within 5 years of implementation of the RMP 

(Appendix 17, Map A17-1). 

b. Reasonable access would be provided across public lands to landlocked private and state lands, 

consistent with BLM Manual 2801.49 and other resource uses and needs. 

c. Access routes would be designed to minimize resource impacts while providing reasonable access. 

d. 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. 

Objective 2 Reclaim or mitigate erosion impacts on transportation corridors. 

Actions

a. BLM’s roads, trails, and bridges would be maintained in fair or better condition. 

b. Land users would be required to use BMPs and operating standards for road maintenance 

(Appendices 3 and 5). 
Chapter 2—Alternative 2 Final EIS 

2-66 Pinedale RMP 

Objective 3 Make public lands available for responsible OHV use where appropriate. 

Actions

a. OHV designations would be established for all lands within the PFO. Periodic adjustments and use 

constraints could be necessary to ensure that identified sensitive resources are appropriately protected 

from excessive disturbance, road/route/trail proliferation, and human encroachment. 

b. Except for over-the-snow equipment, recreational motorized vehicle use would be limited to 

existing roads and trails unless otherwise specified. 

c. OHV open areas would be established in the Mt. Airy, Big Piney, Burma, and LaBarge areas (Map 

2-21). Operation plans would be developed for each area prior to a change in designation. 

d. Oregon Trail inscription sites would be closed to OHV use. 

e. Except for over-the-snow equipment, motorized vehicle use would be limited to designated roads 

and trails in the following areas (Map 2-21): 

• Scab Creek SRMA (outside the WSA) 

• Lake Mountain WSA 

• Trapper’s Point ACEC 

• Native American burial sites. 

f. Motorized vehicle use would be allowed on the Pinedale Pathway. 

g. The planning area would be open to the use of motorized over-the-snow vehicles, except in WSAs 

and areas subject to seasonal closures. 

h. OHV closures and seasonal restrictions would be effective immediately upon signature of the ROD 

for the RMP. 

Vegetation Management 

Management Goals 

Maintain or enhance vegetation community health, composition, and diversity. Reclaim disturbed areas to 

desired plant communities. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Manage permitted actions to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and reduce the total area 

impacted by noxious weeds. 

Actions

a. BLM would collaborate with Sublette County in the treatment of noxious weeds or invasive 

species. 

b. Mitigation would be applied to all activities to control noxious weeds (Appendices 3 and 5). 

c. Weed control would be achieved through chemical, mechanical, and biological methods. 

d. Before a method is selected, all vegetation treatments would be assessed for the potential to 

introduce invasive species. 

e. BLM would support and cooperate with local efforts to manage and control invasive plant species 

or noxious weeds, including local plans and control efforts. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 2 

Pinedale RMP 2-67 

Objective 2 Ensure Special Status Plant Species habitats are maintained at a level sufficient for long-term 

species sustainability. 

Actions

a. Special status plant species surveys would be required on potential habitats before any project or 

activity would be approved. If species are found, avoidance measures would be taken if possible. For 

listed species, protective measures would be developed and implemented in consultation with the 

USFWS. 

b. Known locations of Wyoming BLM sensitive plant species would be avoidance areas for surface 

disturbing activities. 

Visual Resources Management 

Management Goal 

Manage the visual quality of the public lands. 

Management Objective and Actions 

Objective 1 Manage the public lands in a manner that protects the quality of the scenic values of those 

lands. 

Actions

a. VRM classifications would be managed according to Map 2-20 (Table 2-29, p. 2-164). No areas 

would be managed as VRM Class I; 87,150 acres would be managed as VRM Class II; 118,390 acres 

would be managed as VRM Class III; and 717,390 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV. 

b. Manage VRM Class II areas to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change 

to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen but should not 

attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, 

color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

c. Manage VRM Class III areas to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract 

attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic 

elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

d. Manage VRM Class IV areas to provide for management activities that require major modification 

of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be 

high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. 

However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful 

location, minimal disturbance, and repeat of the basic elements. 

Watershed and Water Quality (Surface Water and Groundwater) Management 

Management Goal 

Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater resources and recharge areas from public 

land uses. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 2 Final EIS 

2-68 Pinedale RMP 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Collaborate with the state to achieve the uses and water quality standards specified by the 

WDEQ, reduce the number of streams listed as impaired, and prevent listing of additional streams under 

the Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). 

Actions

a. Prevent, minimize, and/or remediate sources of stream impairment that occur on public lands. 

b. The discharge of produced waters would be in compliance with WDEQ standards. Point source 

discharge of produced waters to streams or other non-isolated surface features would be allowed if 

permitted by WDEQ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and 

following the guidelines provided by the BMPs in Appendix 3. 

c. Oil and gas operators would be encouraged to develop and implement methods that treat produced 

water and enable its productive use. 

d. Use of produced waters to assist in reclamation could be considered on a case-by-case basis and 

would be governed by operating standards and appropriate irrigation water quality standards 

(Appendix 3). 

e. Produced water from coalbed natural gas (CBNG) wells would be handled using the same methods 

used for treatment of produced water from traditional gas and oil wells. 

Objective 2 Meet the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health on riparian/wetland areas and uplands. 

Action

a. Achieve and/or maintain proper functioning condition as a minimum standard on all riparian and 

wetland areas to control nonpoint source pollution to the extent possible. 

Objective 3 Control water runoff from developed sites and maintain soil erosion at appropriate rates for 

natural conditions. 

Actions

a. Apply BMPs and operating standards to mitigate surface disturbance and control nonpoint source 

erosion (Appendices 3 and 5). 

b. Surface disturbance from construction activities greater than one (1) acre in size would be 

regulated under the WDEQ NPDES Stormwater program. 

c. Construction activities would not be restricted in floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas, provided 

they meet the requirements of EOs 11988 and 11990 and Wyoming Water Quality Standards and 

Regulations. 

d. Salt loading in the Colorado River system would be controlled by applying BMPs on all highly 

erodible saline soils potentially affected by management activities. 

Objective 4 Point source pollution would be addressed under the guidance of appropriate Wyoming State 

and federal agencies including, but not limited to WDEQ, Wyoming State Engineers Office (WSEO), and 

EPA. 

Action

a. Cooperate with the state as it develops source water and wellhead protection plans to protect 

drinking water sources. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 2 

Pinedale RMP 2-69 

Wildland Fire and Fuels Management 

Management Goal 

Protect firefighters, public safety, and private property.

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 No loss of life or improved property losses would occur from wildland fire. 

Actions

a. Wildland fire mitigation and fuels activities would be managed to provide for firefighter and public 

safety as a first priority. Public lands within intermixed landownership areas would be managed in 

association with the adjoining and nearby private and state lands. 

b. Areas of mixed landownership; communities at risk as identified in the Federal Register, Volume 

66, Number 160, 2001 (Antelope Run, Beaver Creek area, Boulder, Cottonwood Creek, Daniel, Forty 

Rod, Hoback Ranches, New Fork, Pinedale, Pocket Creek, and Upper Green); urban and industrial 

interface areas; and areas containing high-priority resource values would have high priority for 

response to wildland fires and/or for fuels reduction and mitigation. Wildland fire suppression 

activities would be based on the Appropriate Management Response (AMR) (see Glossary). 

Objective 2 Use prescribed fire to provide for diverse plant communities and successional stages. 

Actions

a. Prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments would be used to reduce hazardous fuels within the 

urban and industrial interface and achieve the objectives of the wildlife habitat, livestock forage, 

visual quality, fuels management, vegetation, watershed quality, and weed control programs. 

b. Rehabilitation efforts would be undertaken to protect and sustain ecosystems, protect public health 

and safety, and help communities protect infrastructure. Actions such as erosion controls, fencing, 

reseeding, and temporary use restrictions could be taken. 

Objective 3 Manage wildfire with minimal damage to other resources. 

Actions

a. Off-road travel of firefighting vehicles and equipment would be allowed throughout the planning 

area with approval of the Resource Advisor on the fire. 

b. Use of fire suppression chemicals would be allowed throughout the planning area. 

c. Movement of waters from whirling-disease-positive to whirling-disease-negative waters would be 

avoided if possible. 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management 

Management Goal 

Maintain or enhance aquatic and wildlife habitat. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Maintain fish and wildlife habitat to the extent possible while providing for multiple use 

management, including oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 2 Final EIS 

2-70 Pinedale RMP 

Action

a. The planning area would be delineated into three distinct, noncontiguous, wildlife management 

zones for the purpose of oil and gas activities (Map 2-7) as follows: 

Intensively Developed Fields (Map 2-7) would be managed for intensive oil and gas activities. 

Traditional Leasing Areas (Map 2-7) would be managed for conservation of important values during 

oil and gas exploration but would provide opportunity for intensive oil and gas development. Should 

a discovery be made and proceed to development, these lands could be moved to Developed Areas 

status. 

Unavailable Areas (Map 2-7) would be managed for protection of wildlife habitats and values other 

than oil and gas development. 

Objective 2 Maintain fish and wildlife habitats to the extent possible. 

Actions

Intensively Developed Fields 

Greater sage-grouse

a. In suitable greater sage-grouse habitats (including nesting, early brood rearing, and winter 

concentration areas), vehicular activities would be restricted to existing roads and trails in accordance 

with dates established for each stage of greater sage-grouse activity. 

b. BMPs or other appropriate mitigation would be applied to surface disturbance and occupancy 

within one-quarter mile of the perimeter of greater sage-grouse leks, including human activity during 

lekking periods. 

c. No seasonal restrictions would be applied to development in greater sage-grouse lekking, nesting, 

early brood rearing, or winter habitats. 

Big Game

d. Elk feedgrounds would be eliminated on public lands. Former feedground areas would be available 

for oil and gas leasing. 

e. No seasonal restrictions would be applied for activities in big game parturition areas, crucial winter 

ranges, and migration routes and bottlenecks. 

Special Status Species

f. Surveys for Special Status Species would be conducted on BLM-administered public lands and 

mineral estate before any federal project or federal activity would be approved. 

g. Surface disturbing activities would be allowed subject to mitigation to minimize cumulative 

impacts. 

Raptors

h. Activities would be designed and mitigated to prevent take of raptors. Proposals would be 

examined case by case to determine potential effects and appropriate mitigation. 

Traditional Leasing Areas 

Greater sage-grouse

a. In suitable greater sage-grouse habitats (including nesting, early brood rearing, and winter 

concentration areas), vehicular activities would be restricted to existing roads and trails in accordance 

with dates established for each stage of greater sage-grouse activity. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 2 

Pinedale RMP 2-71 

b. New proposed surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be designed to limit impacts in 

suitable nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within 2 miles of occupied greater sage-grouse leks or 

in identified sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat from March 15 through July 15. 

c. BMPs or other appropriate mitigation would be applied to surface disturbing and disruptive 

activities in greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas to limit the effects of oil and gas 

exploration and development or other proposed land use activities from November 15 through March 

15. 

d. BMPs or other appropriate mitigation would be applied to surface disturbance and occupancy 

within one-quarter mile of the perimeter of greater sage-grouse leks, including human activity during 

lekking periods. 

Big Game

e. Elk feedgrounds would be eliminated on public lands. Former feedground areas would be available 

for oil and gas leasing. 

f. No seasonal restrictions would be applied for activities in big game parturition areas, crucial winter 

ranges, and migration routes and bottlenecks. 

Special Status Species

g. Surveys for Special Status Species would be conducted on BLM-administered public lands and 

mineral estate before any federal project or federal activity would be approved. 

h. Surface disturbing activities would be allowed subject to mitigation to minimize cumulative 

impacts. 

Raptors

i. Activities would be designed and mitigated to prevent take of raptors. Proposals would be examined 

case by case to determine potential effects and appropriate mitigation. 

Unavailable Areas 

Greater sage-grouse

a. In suitable greater sage-grouse habitats (including nesting, early brood rearing, and winter 

concentration areas), vehicular activities would be restricted to existing roads and trails in accordance 

with dates established for each stage of greater sage-grouse activity. 

b. New proposed surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be designed to limit impacts in 

suitable nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within 2 miles of occupied greater sage-grouse leks or 

in identified sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat from March 15 through July 15. 

c. BMPs or other appropriate mitigation would be applied to surface disturbing and disruptive 

activities in greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas to limit the effects of oil and gas 

exploration and development or other proposed land use activities from November 15 through March 

15. 

d. BMPs or other appropriate mitigation would be applied to surface disturbance and occupancy, 

including human activity within one-quarter mile of the perimeter of greater sage-grouse leks during 

lekking periods. 

Big Game

e. No seasonal restrictions would be applied for activities in big game parturition areas, crucial winter 

ranges, and migration routes and bottlenecks. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 2 Final EIS 

2-72 Pinedale RMP 

Special Status Species

f. Surveys for Special Status Species would be conducted on BLM-administered public lands and 

mineral estate before any federal project or federal activity would be approved. 

g. Surface disturbing activities would be allowed subject to mitigation to minimize cumulative 

impacts. 

Raptors

h. Activities would be designed and mitigated to prevent take of raptors. Proposals would be 

examined case by case to determine potential effects and appropriate mitigation. 

Objective 3 Provide suitable habitat to support the Conservation Agreement and Strategy (CAS) for 

CRCT in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Actions

a. Instream activities such as construction of stream crossings would be designed to protect spawning 

CRCT, redds, and fry. 

b. Chemical use for the purpose of fisheries management to enhance native fish populations or to 

remove unwanted fish species in streams or lakes would be allowed. 

Objective 4 Water developments would be constructed to avoid inadvertent injury to wildlife. 

Action

a. Water developments would be designed to protect animals from injury, and water would be made 

accessible for wildlife use with sufficient protective cover to the extent available. 

Special Designations and Management Areas 

Management Goals 

Trapper’s Point ACEC Management Goals. Preserve cultural and historic resources, viability of the 

big game migration bottleneck, and important livestock trailing use. 

WSA Management Goal. Protect wilderness values in all WSAs. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 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. 

Actions

a. The Trapper’s Point ACEC (550 acres) would be designated (Map 2-19; Table 2-30, p. 2-164). 

Surface disturbing activities would be prohibited except those that enhance the viability of the big 

game migration, operations of the Green River Drift, or activities to interpret or enhance 

understanding of the cultural site. 

b. The ACEC would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

c. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails and would be closed from November 15 

to April 30. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-73 

2.5.4 Alternative 3 

Air Quality Management 

Management Goal 

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. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Maintain concentrations of criteria pollutants associated with management actions in 

compliance with applicable state and federal AAQS.

Objective 2 Maintain concentrations of PSD pollutants associated with management actions in 

compliance with the applicable increment. 

Objective 3 Reduce visibility-impairing pollutants in accordance with the reasonable progress goals and 

time frames established within the State of Wyoming’s Regional Haze SIP. 

Objective 4 Reduce atmospheric deposition pollutants to levels below generally accepted LOCs and 

LACs. 

Actions (these actions apply to all four objectives) 

a. BLM would cooperate in the collection of basic climate and meteorological data from remote 

automatic weather stations. 

b. BLM would cooperate with the EPA and the State of Wyoming and collaborate with the USFS in 

monitoring for atmospheric deposition (acid rain) and its impacts on the Class I airsheds of the 

Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas. 

c. Special requirements such as dust abatement, alternative power sources, and BMPs to alleviate air 

quality impacts would be included on a case-by-case basis in use authorizations within the scope of 

BLM’s authority. 

d. Prescribed burns would be managed to comply with WDEQ-AQD smoke management rules and 

regulations. 

e. BLM would continue to participate in State of the Atmosphere modeling to assess cumulative 

changes to air quality over time. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Management Goals 

Protect and preserve significant cultural resources for appropriate use by present and future generations. 

Promote stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of cultural resources. 

Provide opportunities for scientific, educational, recreational, and traditional uses of cultural resources. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-74 Pinedale RMP 

Reduce imminent threats to eligible and unevaluated cultural resources from natural or human-caused 

impacts or potential conflict with other resource uses. 

Develop a public outreach and education program to instill a preservation ethic in the public regarding 

archeological and historic resources. 

Management Objective and Actions 

Objective 1 Protect NRHP-eligible cultural sites and national historic trails. 

Actions

a. Cultural resource management activity plans would be completed and implemented to identify, 

record, preserve, and protect archeological and historic sites. 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. 

b. Select NRHP-eligible sites would be protected from inappropriate use, erosion, trampling, or other 

damage through monitoring and development of mitigations. 

c. Important cultural areas would be identified and inventoried to protect cultural resources before 

other management actions are proposed. 

d. Surface disturbance or occupancy would be prohibited on communal big game kill sites, Oregon 

Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, select rock alignments, Native American burial locales, modern 

day Native American TCPs, and rock art sites. 

e. Communal big game kill sites, Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, select rock alignments, 

Native American burial locales, modern day Native American TCPs, and rock art sites would be 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

f. Withdrawals from exploration and development of locatable minerals to protect NRHP eligible 

sites and sensitive Native American properties would be pursued as needed. 

g. The Lander Trail and its visual historic setting would be protected through establishment of a VRM 

Class II designation for approximately 169,570 acres of public land within 3 miles of the trail (Map 2-

22). 

h. If a proposed action would diminish the integrity of a cultural property’s setting, and the integrity 

of the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility, appropriate mitigation would be applied (Appendices 1, 

3, and 5). 

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. 

k. Land acquisitions/exchanges would be pursued to preserve cultural resources, as appropriate. 

l. Section 110 inventory acreage would be determined annually based on budget, workload, and 

threats from development, vandalism, and/or erosion. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-75 

Forestry 

Management Goal 

All forest and woodland stands will be managed for restoration to pre-suppression composition, structure, 

and function, with generally widely scattered, more fire resilient larger trees and lower numbers of 

smaller trees. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Return mixed conifer and lodgepole pine stands (approximately 22,000 acres) to their historic 

range of variability (HRV) on a landscape scale, based on the established Fire Regime Condition Class 

(FRCC) Biophysical Settings, which establishes baseline composition and structure Condition Class 1. 

Actions

a. Existing old growth stands and their FRCC would be identified, and the stands would be managed 

to maintain pre-suppression composition, structure, and function on a landscape scale. 

b. Other stands would be managed to move them toward old growth composition, structure, and 

function as appropriate. 

c. Forest health concerns would be identified and stands aggressively managed to improve forest 

health within the guidelines of HFRA. 

d. Forest commodity production and stand improvement activities would be focused on small 

diameter trees as consistent with making the stand fire resilient. Approximately 1,600 CCF/800 

thousand board feet (MBF) of forest products would annually be available for sale. Up to 200 acres of 

forest land could be treated annually by commercial and precommercial thinning activities. 

e. In stands (Fire Regime IV and V) where stand replacement fires are the norm, even age 

management could be practiced consistent within the disturbance ecology framework of the 

vegetation type. 

Objective 2 Return woodland ecosystems to their historic spatial distribution on a landscape scale, based 

on the established FRCC biophysical settings that establish baseline composition and structure Condition 

Class 1. 

Actions

a. Forest products would be available as a secondary product of management consistent with forest 

health, landscape restoration, and reduction of forest fuels objectives. 

b. Restoration of aspen stands would be emphasized through removing/reducing conifer and/or 

sagebrush 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. 

c. Up to 700 acres of woodlands could undergo vegetation treatment per year. 

d. Spatial position of juniper and limber pine woodlands would be determined by age class structure 

of the stands. Any stand with few or no trees within the 120-150+ year age class would be considered 

to have invaded the sagebrush/grass biophysical setting or to have greatly increased in density and are 

out of appropriate spatial distribution. 

e. Aspen stands would be managed to maintain an average age of the mature stems of 60 to 100 years 

per clone, with healthy sapling stands having approximately 2,000+ stems per acre. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-76 Pinedale RMP 

Objective 3 Restore or emulate natural/historic forest cycles on the forested lands and woodlands within 

the Scab Creek and Lake Mountain WSAs. 

Action

a. Prescribed or wildland fire could be used to achieve vegetation alteration in the WSAs. Mechanical 

surface disturbing activities would be prohibited, and no forest products would be removed from 

WSAs. 

Objective 4 Using HFRA guidelines, maintain and/or restore identified old growth stands. 

Action

a. All stands would be analyzed for old growth characteristics prior to entry by using existing or new 

inventory methods and analysis of previous forest management activities. Stands meeting old growth 

standards for their vegetation type would be managed to maintain old growth composition, structure, 

and function on a landscape scale as defined by the appropriate biophysical setting. Connectivity of 

existing old growth areas would be maintained at appropriate locations and distribution levels. Old 

growth stands would be maintained using appropriate mechanical and prescribed fire tools to 

maintain pre-suppression composition, structure, and function. 

Lands and Realty Management 

Management Goals 

Provide for use of public lands in accordance with federal regulations where compatible with other 

resources. Pursue land tenure adjustments that are in the public interest. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Process land tenure adjustments that would benefit or achieve the goals of other resource 

programs. 

Actions

a. Of the 6,300 acres that meet the FLPMA disposal criteria for sale, 790 would be available 

(Appendix 14 and Map 2-23). 

b. Emphasis would be placed on actions that accommodate and enhance wildlife migration routes 

within the planning area. 

Objective 2 Respond to community needs for expansion and economic development. 

Actions

a. Proposals for land tenure adjustments (Map 2-23) would be considered on a case-by-case basis and 

according to the criteria outlined in Appendix 13. Before any land tenure adjustments were made, 

additional NEPA analysis would be conducted on the proposal. Riparian, wetland, and aquatic 

resources would not be available for disposal. 

b. Acquisition of nonfederal lands from willing parties would be considered to meet the goals of the 

various resource management programs. Land exchanges would be considered if they would enhance 

other resource values, provide public benefit, or improve management efficiency in areas of scattered 

or intermingled landownership patterns (Appendix 13). 

c. No lands would be determined suitable for DLE. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-77 

d. Trespass within the planning area would be resolved. BLM would pursue the resolution of 

occupancy, mineral, or other trespass to the benefit of BLM and the public. 

e. Realty actions that would accommodate and enhance wildlife migration routes would be actively 

pursued. Public lands would be retained to provide for free movement of migrating big game animals 

at— 

• Trapper’s Point 

• The south end of Fremont Lake 

• Other important wildlife migration routes as identified. 

Objective 3 Process ROW applications in a timely manner, applying appropriate mitigation to protect 

resource values. 

Actions

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). 

c. No exceptions would be permitted for activities in ROW exclusion areas (Map 2-24; Table 2-27, p. 

2-160). 

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. 

e. Proposals for alternative energy development (for example, wind or solar) would be considered on 

a case-by-case basis. 

1. Alternative energy development would not be allowed in sensitive areas, including but 

not limited to— 

• Raptor concentration areas 

• Neotropical bird migration routes 

• Within 3 miles of sage-grouse leks 

• Sage-grouse winter concentration areas 

• VRM Class I or II areas 

• WSAs, SRMAs, ACECs, and other SD/MAs 

• Lander Trail, Sublette Cutoff Trail, and sensitive Native American and cultural 

sites identified for no lease or NSO 

• T&E species habitats 

• BLM Sensitive Species habitats 

• Big game crucial winter ranges and parturition areas. 

f. No water disposal pits would be permitted. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-78 Pinedale RMP 

Objective 4 Approximately 65,750 acres of new withdrawals from locatable mineral entry and land 

disposal would be pursued to protect wildlife habitat, visual and recreational values, and cultural sites 

(Table 2-26, p 2-159, Map 2-25). 

Livestock Grazing Management 

Management Goals 

Enhance forage production; 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 potential for the ecological site; improve forage production and ecological conditions; 

maintain or improve riparian habitat to enhance forage conditions, wildlife habitat, and stream quality; 

and achieve proper functioning condition as a minimum standard of stability on all riparian areas. 

Management Objective and Actions 

Objective 1 Meet the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Actions

a. Permitted active AUMS would be reduced to approximately 84,000 AUMs, a 22% reduction. 

Reductions would be analyzed and implemented on an individual permit basis. 

b. Areas open to grazing and available AUMs would be reduced where industrial activity conflicts 

with grazing operations and rangeland management objectives. Conflicts could include loss of forage, 

unsuccessful rehabilitation of disturbed areas, invasive species, safety hazards, improper livestock 

distribution, or other circumstances. Affected allotments would include Stud Horse Butte, Desert 

Sand Draw, Mesa Common, North LaBarge, Deer Hills, Mount Airy Common, NW Square Top, 

Blue Rim Individual, Clark-Bloom, Blue Rim Desert, South Desert, Square Top Common, and New 

Fork Individual allotments (122,091 acres; 12,229 AUMs). AUMs in other allotments within the 

planning area could be reduced or allotments closed if industrial activity increases to a level where 

the two activities are incompatible. 

c. Permanent reductions in grazing preference in other areas could be implemented if other mitigation 

measures are impractical or unsuccessful as shown by monitoring and other data. Adjustments in 

livestock grazing use would be made as a result of monitoring and in consultation, coordination, and 

cooperation with grazing permittees, other affected interests, and state agencies. 

d. Grazing systems would be designed to enhance wildlife habitat, vegetation condition, recreation 

values, and watershed health. 

e. Livestock grazing in areas of crucial big game winter ranges would be managed to enhance 

vegetation condition and forage availability for wildlife. 

f. Livestock water developments on crucial big game winter ranges would be allowed only if they 

would not adversely impact the crucial range or wintering big game. 

g. Water developments in important wildlife habitats would be made available to wildlife season 

long. 

h. Grazing seasons in allotments containing elk parturition areas would be adjusted to begin after June 

1 to reduce the potential for brucellosis transmission. This action would only occur after, and in 

conjunction with, development of a herd management plan through coordination and cooperation with 

the affected grazing permittee and the WGFD. 

i. Approximately 21,000 unallocated acres would be allocated to other resources such as wildlife and 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-79 

recreation and would not be permitted for livestock grazing. 

j. Developed recreation sites (approximately 100 acres) and vegetation exclosures (approximately 75 

acres or up to 150 AUMs) would be closed to livestock grazing. 

k. New forest regeneration areas would be protected from concentrations of livestock where 

necessary to facilitate tree establishment. 

l. The Rock Creek ACEC Watershed Area (4,660 acres) would be closed to livestock grazing. 

m. Forage reserves could be established as opportunities arise to provide management flexibility to 

rest other allotments during drought years, habitat improvements, wildfire, prescribed burns, and 

other circumstances as necessary. Use of allotments as forage reserves would not exceed the 

allotment’s livestock grazing capacity. 

n. In allotments with riparian habitat, grazing management actions would be designed to maintain or 

achieve proper functioning condition. 

o. Mineral supplement blocks for livestock and wildlife use would not be placed within one-quarter 

mile of occupied sage-grouse leks, live water, wetland, or riparian areas, unless activity plans show 

that it is necessary to meet management objectives and any impacts are mitigated. 

Minerals Management 

Management Goal 

Provide opportunities for mineral extraction and energy exploration and development while emphasizing 

protection and enhancement of soils, water, vegetation, wildlife, fish, and other renewable resources. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 (Intensively Developed Fields) Make federal lands and minerals within the existing Jonah and 

Pinedale Anticline oil and gas fields available for intensive oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, 

and production (67,210 acres) (Map 2-8). 

Actions

a. Mineral leases, including those for minerals other than oil and gas, would be subject to the same 

restrictions established for other surface disturbing and disruptive activities under this alternative. 

b. Existing oil and gas leases (66,020 acres) would be managed under their existing lease terms and 

stipulations. 

1. Oil and gas development would be regulated to conserve important wildlife habitats, 

including big game crucial winter ranges and greater sage-grouse habitats. 

2. Surface disturbances for exploration purposes would be subject to additional 

limitations, including BMPs applied to protect sensitive habitats and other resources. 

3. On-lease water disposal pits would not be allowed. 

c. Exceptions would be considered to allow year-round drilling and development operations on those 

existing leases in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline oil and gas fields that are currently encumbered by 

seasonal restrictions. Such exceptions would be subject to additional environmental analysis and to 

the leaseholder/operator implementing offsetting mitigation, including but not limited to, habitat 

replacement or enhancement; development of a liquids (condensate and produced water) gathering 

system to reduce truck traffic; remote telemetry; drilling multiple wells from new and existing pads; 

directional drilling; noise reduction for drilling and completion operations; flareless completion; and 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-80 Pinedale RMP 

tier 4 or better emission equipment. 

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 per USFWS requirements. 

d. BMPs and operating standards would be applied to protect sensitive habitats and other resources 

(Appendices 3 and 5). 

e. Accelerated reclamation would be implemented. 

f. BLM-permitted actions on split estate lands (private or state surface with underlying federal 

minerals) would be subject to the same stipulations as federal leases on federal surface. For example, 

if a split estate lease contains crucial big game winter habitat, the lease would be offered with the 

crucial big game winter range seasonal restriction. These restrictions would not constrain actions of 

the surface landowner. Exceptions to surface development restrictions could be granted if requested 

or agreed to by the surface landowner. 

Objective 2 (Traditional Leasing Areas) Make federal lands and minerals as depicted on Map 2-8 

(420,780 acres) available for oil and gas leasing and exploration, with emphasis on minimizing or 

mitigating impacts to non-oil and gas resource values. 

Actions

a. Mineral leases, including those for minerals other than oil and gas, would be subject to timing 

limitation, CSU, and NSO stipulations and COA, as well as additional restrictions established for 

other surface disturbing and disruptive activities in this alternative. 

b. Existing oil and gas leases (373,230 acres) would be managed under their existing lease terms and 

stipulations. 

1. Oil and gas activities would be regulated to mitigate impacts to important wildlife 

habitats, including big game crucial winter ranges and greater sage-grouse habitats. 

2. BMPs and operating standards would be applied to mitigate impacts to sensitive 

habitats and other resources (Appendices 3 and 5). 

c. Post-lease actions (APDs, Sundry Notices) would be managed under restrictions and COAs 

developed through the appropriate level of environmental analysis. 

d. On-lease water disposal pits would not be allowed. 

e. Lands in these areas could convert to Intensively Developed Fields when bottom-hole well density 

exceeds one well per 160 acres and a surface density of four well pads per 640-acre section. 

Consideration for conversion would depend on (1) a geology and reservoir analysis determination that 

additional well density is needed to efficiently and adequately produce the gas or oil resource; (2) that 

surface resources can be satisfactorily mitigated; and (3) that a project-specific environmental 

documentation is prepared to analyze impacts and to determine operating methods, mitigation, and 

BMPs to be used in the efficient and comprehensive development of the field. 

Objective 3 (Unavailable Areas) Make federal lands and minerals as depicted on Map 2-8 (641,820 acres) 

unavailable for future oil and gas leasing. 

Actions

a. Existing oil and gas leases in these areas (200,330 acres) would be managed under their existing 

lease terms and stipulations. 

1. Oil and gas activities would be regulated to mitigate impacts to important wildlife 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-81 

habitats, including big game crucial winter ranges and greater sage-grouse habitats. 

2. BMPs and operating standards would be applied to mitigate impacts to sensitive 

habitats and other resources (Appendices 3 and 5). 

3. Post-lease actions (APDs, Sundry Notices) would be managed under restrictions and 

COAs developed through the appropriate level of additional environmental analysis. 

b. Lands in these areas could convert to the Intensively Developed Fields category when bottom-hole 

well density on preexisting leases exceeds one well per 160 acres and a surface density of four well 

pads per 640-acre section. Consideration for conversion would depend on (1) a geology and reservoir 

analysis determination that additional well density is needed to efficiently and adequately produce the 

gas or oil resource; (2) that surface resources can be satisfactorily mitigated; and (3) that a projectspecific environmental documentation is prepared to analyze impacts and to determine operating 

methods, mitigation, and BMPs to be used in the efficient and comprehensive development of the 

field. 

c. Lands and mineral estate in these areas would be unavailable for lease. 

d. The unavailable designation could be lifted, and specific areas (excluding WSAs and other areas 

withheld from leasing by law) could be leased under the following circumstances: 

1. Development on adjacent state or private mineral estate is determined to be draining 

federal oil and/or gas resources to the extent that drilling an off-setting federal well(s) is 

needed to address the drainage situation. 

2. Drainage determinations would be made by RMG. When RMG determines that a 

drainage situation exists in an Unavailable Area, a recommendation would be made to the 

Wyoming BLM State Office, in consultation with the PFO, to offer the area being 

drained for competitive leasing. 

3. The area offered for leasing would be the minimum needed to resolve the drainage 

issue. 

4. Impacts to wildlife habitat, cultural resources, vegetation, and visual and recreational 

values would be adequately mitigated. 

e. On-lease water disposal pits would not be allowed. 

f. 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 determined necessary by the Authorized Officer. 

Objective 4 Provide opportunities for geophysical and geologic data acquisition while protecting 

important resource values from impacts. 

Actions

a. Geophysical activity proposals would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Geophysical 

exploration would be approved by the Authorized Officer. 

b. Geophysical data gathering methods that involve only casual use of the surface (as defined by 43 

CFR §3150) would be permitted throughout the planning area. 

c. The use of surface and/or above-ground (Poulter shot) explosive charges for seismic exploration 

would be prohibited. 

d. The use of vibroseis energy generating (shaking) operations would be prohibited within 50 feet of 

active pygmy rabbit and white-tailed prairie dog burrows. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-82 Pinedale RMP 

e. Vehicle use for geophysical activities would be subject to OHV designations. 

f. Vehicle-based geophysical activities would be restricted to designated roads and trails within the 

Ross Butte, Miller Mountain, and Wind River Front Management Areas; Rock Creek, Beaver Creek, 

New Fork Potholes and Trapper’s Point ACECs; on the Oregon Trail; and within the Long Island 

watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 1404010108) where slopes are greater than 15%. 

g. Geophysical vehicle travel would be prohibited within one-quarter mile of developed recreation 

sites. 

h. Geophysical activities would be prohibited on communal big game kill sites, Oregon Trail 

inscription sites, rock shelters, select rock alignments, Native American burial locales, modern day 

Native American TCPs, and rock art sites. 

i. Geophysical activities would be prohibited in NSO areas. 

j. Geophysical operations on post-FLPMA leased or unleased BLM-administered surface within the 

Scab Creek and Lake Mountain WSAs would be considered on a case-by-case basis, provided the 

operations meet the requirements of the Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness 

Review (BLM Handbook H-8550-1). Geophysical operations on pre-FLPMA leased, BLMadministered surface within the Lake Mountain WSA would be allowed pursuant to site-specific 

NEPA analysis and the pre-FLPMA requirements in H-8550-1. 

k. 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. 

Objective 5 Make coal resources unavailable for leasing and development. 

Action

a. The planning area would be closed to coal leasing. 

Objective 6 Make lands not withdrawn or segregated from mineral entry available for locatable mineral 

exploration and development (1,133,530 acres). 

Actions

a. Locatable mineral activities would be subject to regulatory requirements; resource constraints 

would be based on the undue and unnecessary degradation standard. 

b. New mineral withdrawals (65,750 acres) would be pursued to protect wildlife habitats, visual and 

recreational values, and cultural sites (Table 2-26, p. 2-159; Map 2-25). 

Objective 7 Salable mineral resources would be available for development. 

Actions

a. Salable mineral activities would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

b. The planning area would be open to mineral material disposals with the exception of WSAs 

(21,200 acres) (Map 2-26; Table 2-30, p. 2-164). 

Objective 8 Make other leasable minerals (phosphate, sodium [trona], and geothermal steam) available 

for exploration and development. 

Actions

a. Geothermal leasing and development would be considered and managed under the same objectives, 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-83 

management actions, and restrictions, and in the same areas identified as being available for Intensive 

Development and Traditional Leasing Areas for oil and gas leasing and development in this 

alternative. 

b. Management of phosphate, sodium, oil shale, and geothermal steam would be the same as for 

Alternative 1. 

c. Should interest in other leasable minerals materialize in the future, leasing would be considered on 

a case-by-case basis, and the RMP would be amended as appropriate and necessary. 

Paleontology and Natural History 

Management Goal 

Protect significant fossils and known paleontological resources from damage or destruction and facilitate 

suitable scientific, educational, and recreational uses of fossils. 

Management Objective and Action 

Objective 1 Known and newly discovered paleontological resources would be managed to maintain or 

improve current condition. 

Action

a. Areas of unique natural history, important paleontological resources, or particular natural interest, 

including the Pinedale Glacial Area, would be nominated for designation as NNLs, RNAs, or ACECs, 

and managed for protection of their unique values. 

Recreation and Visitor Services Management 

Management Goal 

Provide substantial personal, community, economic, and environmental benefits to local residents and 

visitors through recreational uses of the public lands. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Maintain or enhance the health and viability of recreation dependent natural resources and 

settings within the planning area. 

Actions

a. A 14-day campsite occupancy limit would apply throughout the planning area. This occupancy limit 

applies to a 5-mile radius of the campsite. 

b. Dispersed camping and authorized commercial camps would be prohibited within 500 feet of springs 

and seeps. 

c. Surface occupancy within one-half mile of developed recreation sites would be prohibited. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-84 Pinedale RMP 

Objective 2 Promote commercial competitive events and organized group activities where appropriate and 

compatible with natural resource management objectives. 

Action

a. Additional SRPs, except through the transfer of an existing SRP, would not be available for 

commercial river guiding activities on the Green and New Fork Rivers until determined otherwise 

through completion of a RAMP. 

Objective 3 Manage SRMAs to provide for current and future recreation opportunities. 

Actions

a. Refer to RMZ specific objectives and management below. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

would be used for each SRMA as a guide to maintain, promote, or modify recreation activities, 

settings, and experiences (Appendix 16). 

b. Scab Creek SRMA—The Scab Creek SRMA would be retained at (18,460 acres) and would be 

managed as two RMZs. The Middle Country Zone would consist of the BLM access road with 

trailhead and other visitor facilities. The Back Country Zone would consist of the Scab Creek WSA 

and other areas at least one-half mile from any roads or constructed facilities. 

1. Recreation Tourism Market: The Middle Country Zone would be a Community 

Market, and the Back Country Zone would be an Undeveloped Market. Users would be 

local area residents and regional visitors.

2. The Recreation Segment for the Middle Country Zone would be for developed access 

and trailhead facilities for backcountry and area day use activities and experiences. The 

Back Country Zone would provide non-motorized backcountry recreational activities 

such as backpacking and other adventure activities that require a high degree of selfreliance. 

3. The Management Objective for the Scab Creek SRMA would be to manage each zone 

to provide opportunities for the public to achieve targeted, high-quality recreation 

activities and experiences in a substantially natural setting, which produce significant 

benefits for the visiting public (Table 2-11 and Table 2-12). 

4. Recreation Management: A RAMP would be developed. Use limits on commercial 

SRPs would apply until appropriate use levels for permitted and non-permitted recreation 

activities are established in the RAMP. Facility Guidelines: Rural Country Setting 

Characteristics would apply. 

A RAMP would be developed. Use limits on commercial SRPs would apply until 

appropriate use levels for permitted and non-permitted recreation activities are 

established in the RAMP. All developed facilities would conform to Middle Country 

Setting Character. 

5. Marketing: Informational signs, directional signs, and regulatory signs would be used 

at the trailhead/staging area, and word of mouth dissemination of information passed 

along by users and agency personnel. 

6. Recreation Monitoring: BLM personnel and volunteers would regularly monitor both 

zones. Visitor use surveys would be implemented to determine whether targeted 

outcomes are being achieved. 

7. Recreation Administration: The issuance of additional SRPs would not be considered. 

Camping would be limited to a 14-day length of stay. The WSA would be closed to 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-85 

motorized vehicles. Outside the WSA, OHV use would be limited to designated roads 

and trails. VRM Class I objectives would apply to the Scab Creek WSA, and VRM Class 

II objectives would apply to the remainder of the SRMA. The SRMA would be 

administratively unavailable for fluid mineral leasing. The SRMA outside the WSA 

would be withdrawn from entry for locatable minerals. 

Table 2-11. Targeted Outcomes—Scab Creek SRMA 

Primary Activities Experiences Benefits 

MIDDLE COUNTRY ZONE 

Backpacking, hiking, equestrian 

Camping 

Viewing wildlife and scenery 

Enjoy viewing natural scenery 

Relaxing physically 

Engaging in preferred activities in 

preferred settings with family and 

friends 

Personal: 

• Nature and aesthetic 

appreciation 

• Social bonding/cohesion 

cooperation 

• Personal health and fitness 

Community: 

• Family bonding/better family life 

• Improved image of land 

management agencies 

Environmental: 

• Public learns environmental 

stewardship 

• Better care and stewardship of 

Wind River Front 

Economic: 

• Increased attractiveness of 

region as a place to live 

BACK COUNTRY ZONE 

Backpacking 

Pack stock-oriented recreation 

Wilderness camping 

Hunting 

Viewing wildlife and natural scenery 

Enjoying viewing natural scenery 

Engaging in preferred activities with 

family and friends 

Wilderness experience 

Personal: 

• Nature/aesthetic appreciation 

• Social bonding/cooperation 

• Personal health and fitness 

• Self-reliance 

Community: 

• Improved perceived quality of 

life 

• Family bonding/better family life 

• Improved image of BLM 

Environmental: 

• Public learns environmental 

stewardship 

• Better care of Wind River Front 

and enhancement of 

wilderness experience 

Economic: 

• Increased attractiveness of 

region as a place to live 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-86 Pinedale RMP 

Table 2-12. Prescribed Setting Character—Scab Creek SRMA 

Physical Social Administrative 

MIDDLE COUNTRY ZONE 

Remoteness: Middle Country 

Naturalness: Middle Country 

Facilities: Middle Country 

Contacts: Middle Country 

Group Size: Back Country 

Evidence of Use: Middle Country 

Types of Encounters: Middle 

Country 

Mechanized Use: Middle Country 

Visitor Services: Middle Country 

Management Controls: Middle 

Country 

Domestic Animals: Middle Country 

BACK COUNTRY ZONE 

Remoteness: Back Country 

Naturalness: Back Country 

Facilities: Back Country 

Contacts: Back Country 

Group Size: Middle Country 

Evidence of Use: Back Country 

Types of Encounters: Back Country 

Mechanized Use: Back Country 

Visitor Services: Middle to Back 

Country 

Management Controls: Back 

Country 

Use Fees: Primitive 

Domestic Animals: Back Country 

c. Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA. The Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA (118,550 acres), 

would be managed as a Middle Country RMZ. The SRMA would be comprised of BLMadministered land within 1 mile of each side of the Green and New Fork Rivers from U.S. Highway 

191 to Fontenelle Reservoir. 

1. Recreation Tourism Market: The Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA would be 

Community Market. Users would be local area residents and regional visitors.

2. Recreation Segment: Recreation management would focus on river-related recreation 

activities. 

3. Management Objective: The Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA would be managed to 

provide opportunities for the public to achieve targeted recreation activities and 

experiences, which produce significant benefits for the visiting public. The SRMA would 

provide a 90% or better realization of targeted benefits (Table 2-13 and Table 2-14). 

4. Recreation Management: A RAMP would be prepared to guide management of 

recreation use while enhancing the area’s natural setting. Management direction would be 

to maintain a Middle Country Setting. 

5. Marketing: Standard BLM venues would be used for disseminating recreation user 

information onsite and offsite using regional BLM publications and Internet technologies. 

6. Recreation Monitoring: Monitoring would be conducted regularly by BLM personnel 

and volunteers. Visitor use surveys would be implemented to determine if targeted 

outcomes are being achieved. 

7. Recreation Administration: Commercial river guide SRPs would be limited to existing 

SRPs. SRPs that expire would not be reissued. Camping would be limited to a 14-day 

length of stay. Motorized vehicles would be limited to designated roads and trails. VRM 

Class II objectives would apply to the entire river corridor within the SRMA boundary. 

The SRMA would be administratively unavailable for fluid mineral leasing. The SRMA 

would be withdrawn from entry for locatable minerals. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-87 

Table 2-13. Targeted Outcomes—Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA 

Primary Activities Experiences Benefits 

Float and wade fishing 

Float camping 

Hunting 

Viewing wildlife and scenery 

Float and wade fishing 

Float camping 

Hunting 

Viewing wildlife and scenery 

Personal: 

• Nature/aesthetic appreciation 

• Greater self-reliance 

• Stronger ties with family and 

friends 

• Improved physical andmental 

health and well being 

Community/Social: 

• Improved image of land 

management agencies 

• Improved perceived quality of 

life 

• Family bonding 

Environmental: 

• Better environmental 

stewardship 

Economic 

• Support local economy 

Table 2-14. Prescribed Setting Character—Green and New Fork Rivers 

Physical Social Administrative 

Remoteness: Front Country and 

Rural 

Naturalness: Front Country and 

Rural 

Facilities: Middle Country 

Group Size: Back Country and 

Middle Country 

Contacts: Middle Country 

Types of Encounters: Middle 

Country 

Personal Gear/Equipment: Middle 

Country 

Evidence of Use: Middle Country 

Visitor Services: Middle Country 

Management Controls: Middle 

Country 

Domestic Animals: Middle Country 

Individual User Fees: Primitive 

Mechanized Use: Middle Country 

d. Boulder Lake SRMA—The Boulder Lake SRMA would be retained (5,790 acres), managed as a 

Middle Country RMZ. The SRMA developments consist of the BLM access road, boat launch area, 

restrooms, parking area, two non-fee campgrounds, public information facilities and undeveloped 

primitive roads and trails. 

1. The Recreation Market for the Boulder Lake SRMA would be Community Market.

Users would be local area residents and regional visitors. 

2. The Recreation Segment for the Boulder Lake SRMA would be a natural-appearing 

landscape that provides easy lake and river access and provides substantial opportunities 

to experience lake and upland-based recreation activities such as lake fishing, boating, 

river wade fishing, hunting, camping, equestrian use, cycling, motorized activities, 

wildlife viewing, and glacial lake scenery. 

3. The Management Objective for the Boulder Lake SRMA would be to provide 

opportunities for the public to achieve targeted, high-quality recreation activities and 

experiences, which produce significant benefits for the visiting public. Opportunities 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-88 Pinedale RMP 

would be provided for visitors to engage in targeted activities, providing a 90% or better 

realization of targeted benefits (Table 2-15 and Table 2-16). Emphasis would be placed 

on less structured recreation opportunities. Facility development would be commensurate 

with a Middle Country Setting. 

4. Recreation Management: A RAMP would be prepared to guide management of 

recreation use while enhancing the area’s natural setting. 

5. The Market Strategy is to use standard BLM venues for disseminating recreational user 

information and regulations onsite. Informational signs, directional signs, and regulatory 

signs would be used. Users and agency personnel would spread information by word of 

mouth. 

6. Recreation Monitoring: BLM personnel and volunteers would regularly conduct 

recreation monitoring. Visitor use surveys would be implemented to determine whether 

targeted outcomes are being achieved. 

7. Recreation Administration: Commercial lake and river guide SRPs would be limited to 

existing SRPs. Expired SRPs would not be reissued. Camping would be limited to a 14- 

day length of stay. Motorized vehicles would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

VRM Class II objectives would apply. The SRMA would be administratively unavailable 

for fluid mineral leasing. The SRMA would be withdrawn from entry for locatable 

minerals. 

Table 2-15. Targeted Outcomes—Boulder Lake SRMA 

Activities Experiences Benefits 

Lake and river fishing 

Boating 

Camping 

Hunting 

Relaxing physically 

Engaging in preferred activities with 

family and friends 

Personal: 

• Nature and aesthetic 

appreciation 

• Social bonding/cohesion 

• Personal health and fitness 

Community: 

• Improved perceived quality of 

life 

• Family bonding/better family life 

• Improved image of land 

management agencies 

Environmental: 

• Public learns environmental 

stewardship 

• Better care of Wind River Front 

Economic: 

• Increased attractiveness of 

region as a place to live 

Table 2-16. Prescribed Setting Character—Boulder Lake SRMA 

Physical Social Administrative 

Remoteness: Middle Country 

Naturalness: Middle Country 

Facilities: Middle Country 

Contacts: Middle Country 

Group Size: Middle Country 

Evidence of Use: Middle Country 

Mechanized Use: Middle Country 

Visitor Services: Middle Country 

Management Controls: Middle 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-89 

Physical Social Administrative 

Types of Encounters: Middle 

Country 

Country 

User Fees: Primitive 

Domestic Animals: Middle Country 

Objective 4 Extensive Recreation Management Area (remainder of the Pinedale Planning Area) 

Provide an array of resource-dependent dispersed recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, 

motorized use, and open space. Management would be extensive rather than intensive. Management 

actions would be custodial in nature and focus on the following: 

a. The development of new recreation facilities only when necessary to protect human health, safety, 

and natural resource values 

b. The maintenance and enhancement of important public access 

c. The resolution of resource and social conflicts. 

Soils Management 

Management Goal 

Prevent or mitigate impacts on soil stability, productivity, and water infiltration to prevent accelerated 

erosion and provide for optimal plant growth. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Reclaim or mitigate impacts of erosion from past surface disturbing activities within 5 years 

of RMP implementation. 

Actions

a. BLM would work with state and local communities, bonding companies, and operators to achieve 

the reclamation objective. 

b. Disturbed areas would be reclaimed to achieve natural erosion rates. 

Objective 2 Ensure that all newly disturbed areas are successfully reclaimed. 

Actions

a. Mitigation, including WDEQ BMPs, would be applied in all areas to limit soil erosion and related 

undesirable conditions with special emphasis in areas with soils that are classified as highly erodible, 

such as Ross Butte, Blue Rim, Milleson Draw, the Long Island Watershed, and Red Canyon 

(Appendices 3 and 5). 

b. Surface disturbance would be prohibited on sensitive soils on slopes greater than 8%. 

c. Disturbed areas would be reclaimed to achieve natural erosion rates. 

Transportation, Access, and Travel Management 

Management Goals 

Provide access for approved public land uses consistent with public health and safety and other resource 

value concerns. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-90 Pinedale RMP 

Provide public use opportunities where compatible with other resource values. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Provide needed and appropriate ingress, egress, and access routes to and across public lands 

for authorized uses. 

Actions

a. Transportation planning would be completed within 5 years of implementation of the RMP (see 

Appendix 17 and Map A17-1). 

b. Access to county and state roads would be minimized and consolidated where practicable to 

enhance safety and minimize conflict points. Ingress and egress to state highways and county roads 

would be coordinated with the state highway department and counties, respectively. 

c. Reasonable access would be provided across public lands to landlocked private and state lands, 

consistent with BLM Manual 2801.49. 

d. Access across private lands to isolated public land parcels would be acquired from willing 

landowners. 

e. Common ROW routes would be designated, where appropriate, to minimize environmental 

impacts. Road construction would be planned and implemented to avoid creating unusable islands of 

wildlife habitat. 

f. New developments would be designed to minimize the number and miles of new roads, habitat 

fragmentation, and main access points to new fields. 

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. 

Objective 2 Reclaim or mitigate erosion impacts on transportation corridors. 

Actions

a. Road or trail closure and abandonment would be based on desired road or trail densities, demands 

for new roads, closure methods, type of access needed, resource development or protection needs, and 

existing uses. 

b. BLM’s roads, trails, and bridges would be maintained in fair or better condition. 

c. Land users would be required to use BMPs and operating standards for road maintenance 

(Appendices 3 and 5). 

Objective 3 Make public lands available for responsible OHV use, where appropriate. 

Actions

a. OHV designations will be established for all lands within the PFO. Periodic adjustments and use 

constraints could be necessary to ensure that identified sensitive resources are appropriately protected 

from excessive disturbance, road/route/trail proliferation, and human encroachment. 

b. Recreational motorized vehicle use, except for over-the-snow equipment, would be limited to 

existing roads and trails unless otherwise specified. 

c. No open OHV use areas would be designated. 

d. The following areas would be closed to motorized access (Map 2-27): 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-91 

• Lake Mountain WSA 

• Red Dugway/Fish Creek area 

• Oregon Trail inscription sites, Native American TCPs, rock shelters, Native 

American burial locales, communal big game kill sites, and select rock 

alignments 

• East Fork WSR unit. 

e. Motorized vehicle use would be prohibited on the Pinedale Pathway with the exception of 

maintenance and repair of the pathway. 

f. Motorized vehicle use, except for over-the-snow equipment, would be limited to designated roads 

and trails in the following areas (Map 2-27): 

• Boulder Lake, Scab Creek, and Upper Green River SRMAs 

• Trapper’s Point, CCC Ponds, and Ross Butte ACECs 

• Miller Mountain Management Area 

• East Fork River/Irish Canyon area 

• Muddy Creek/Badlands area 

• Red Canyon area 

• Green River WSR unit. 

g. The following areas would be closed to over-the-snow recreational motorized equipment: 

• Big game crucial winter ranges 

• WSAs 

• CCC Ponds ACEC. 

h. OHV use (including over-the-snow) in certain areas would be limited on a seasonal basis (Table 

2-28, p. 2-162). 

i. Additional restrictions for all motorized equipment would apply as follows (Map 2-27): 

1. Approximately 2,500 acres between Silver Creek and Cottonwood Creek (November 

15 through January 31). 

j. OHV closures and seasonal restrictions would be effective immediately upon signature of the ROD 

for the RMP. 

k. For all areas in which OHV use is limited to existing roads and trails, motor vehicle travel would 

be allowed up to 300 feet away from roads for camping, recovering game animals, collecting 

firewood, picnicking, or other uses that do not require specific authorizations or permits, provided 

resource damage does not occur and new routes are not created. 

l. Other necessary tasks that require off-road motor vehicle travel could be allowed, provided resource 

damage does not occur or new routes are not created. These activities include but are not limited to 

geophysical exploration, maintaining range improvements, and surveying ROWs or other workrelated tasks authorized by or that lead to the issuance of a permit or authorization. Necessary tasks 

could be allowed by the field office in advance of issuance of a formal authorization. 

Vegetation Management 

Management Goals 

Maintain and/or enhance native vegetation community health, composition, and diversity. Reclaim 

disturbed areas to desired plant communities. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-92 Pinedale RMP 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Establish and maintain an accurate vegetation inventory for the planning area. 

Action

a. BLM would collaborate with stakeholders (federal, state, and local agencies; operators; and 

landowners) to identify funding mechanisms and methods to complete vegetation inventory. 

Objective 2 Manage permitted actions to control the spread of and/or eradicate noxious weed infestations. 

Actions

a. BLM would collaborate with Sublette County in the treatment of noxious weeds or invasive 

species. 

b. BMPs would be applied to all activities to control noxious weeds (Appendix 3). 

c. Weed control would be limited to mechanical and biological methods. 

d. Before selection of a treatment method, all vegetation treatments would be assessed for the 

potential to introduce invasive species. 

e. BLM would support and cooperate with local efforts to manage and control invasive plant species 

or noxious weeds, including local plans and control efforts. 

Objective 3 Ensure Special Status Plant Species habitats are maintained at a level sufficient for long-term 

species sustainability. 

Actions

a. Special Status Plant Species surveys would be required on potential habitats before any project or 

activity would be approved. If such species are found, all disruptive activities would halt in the 

inhabited area until species-specific protective measures were developed and implemented. For listed 

species, protective measures would be developed and implemented in consultation with the USFWS. 

b. Mitigation would be implemented on surface disturbing activities in areas of potential habitat for 

Special Status Plant Species. 

c. Areas where Wyoming BLM sensitive plant species are known to exist would be ROW exclusion 

areas. 

d. Known locations of Special Status Plant Species, including future discoveries, would be protected 

and closed to— 

• Surface disturbing activities that could adversely affect the plants or their habitats 

• Location of new mining claims (withdrawal from mineral location and entry 

under the land laws would be pursued) 

• Mineral material sales 

• All OHV use, including those vehicles used for geophysical exploration 

activities, surveying, etc. 

• Use of explosives and blasting. 

e. Vehicles used for fire suppression activities would be limited to existing roads and trails in Special 

Status Plant Species habitat. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-93 

Objective 4 Conduct vegetation treatments to achieve biodiversity of native species and age classes. 

Actions

a. Prescribed fire, Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit (WFURB), and biological treatments could 

be used to achieve Desired Plant Communities (DPC). 

b. Vegetation treatments would be designed to reduce erosion, protect Special Status Plant Species, 

and enhance vegetation community health. 

c. Vegetation treatments would be designed and implemented to prevent introduction and reduce the 

spread of invasive species. 

d. Treatments would be designed to consider the natural role of fire in ecosystem management and 

restore the natural range of variability in vegetation community types. 

e. Treated areas would be rested from livestock grazing for a minimum of two full growing seasons 

after treatment. 

f. Unless vegetation cover before treatment is adequate, areas proposed for treatment would be rested 

from livestock grazing a minimum of 1 full year before treatment. 

g. Treated areas would be fenced from livestock and big game animals if necessary to provide rest 

from grazing use. 

Visual Resources Management 

Management Goal 

Manage the visual quality of the public lands. 

Management Objective and Actions 

Objective 1 Manage the public lands in a manner that protects the quality of the scenic values of those 

lands. 

Actions

a. VRM classifications would be managed according to Map 2-22 (Table 2-29, p. 2-164): 21,290 

acres would be managed as VRM Class I; 393,260 acres as VRM Class II; 225,830 acres as VRM 

Class III; and 282,300 acres as VRM Class IV. 

b. VRM Class I areas would be managed to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This 

class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management 

activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract 

attention. 

c. Manage VRM Class II areas to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to 

the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen but should not attract 

the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, 

and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

d. Manage VRM Class III areas to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract 

attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic 

elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

e. Manage VRM Class IV areas to provide for management activities that require major modification 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-94 Pinedale RMP 

of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be 

high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. 

However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful 

location, minimal disturbance, and repeat of the basic elements. 

Watershed and Water Quality (Surface Water and Groundwater) Management 

Management Goals 

Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater resources and recharge areas from public 

land uses. 

Maintain or improve surface water and groundwater quantity and quality consistent with applicable state 

and federal standards and regulations. 

Maintain or reestablish proper watershed, wetland, riparian, and stream channel functions to support 

natural or desired surface water flow regimes and meet state water quality standards and the Wyoming 

Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Prevent, minimize, and/or remediate contributions of nonpoint source pollution from federal lands to all 

receiving waters. 

Prevent, minimize, and/or remediate elevated levels of salinity contribution from federal lands to the 

Colorado River system. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Collaborate with the state to achieve the uses and water quality standards specified by the 

WDEQ, reduce the number of streams listed as impaired, and prevent listing of additional streams under 

the Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). 

Actions

a. BLM would prevent, minimize, and/or remediate sources of stream impairment that occur on 

public lands. 

b. The discharge of produced water from point sources to public lands, including stream channels and 

uplands, as a means of disposal would be prohibited. 

c. 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 BLM operating standards (Appendix 3). 

d. Oil and gas operators would be encouraged to develop and implement methods that treat produced 

water and enable its productive use. 

e. BLM would continue cooperation with stakeholders in monitoring surface water and groundwater 

resources potentially affected by public land uses. 

f. Produced water from CBNG wells would be handled using the same methods used for treatment of 

produced water from traditional gas and oil wells. 

Objective 2 Meet the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health on riparian/wetland areas and uplands. 

Actions

a. Achieve and/or maintain proper functioning condition as a minimum standard on all riparian and 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-95 

wetland areas to control nonpoint source pollution to the extent possible. 

b. The 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. Proposals for linear crossings in these areas would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. 

c. Surface disturbing and construction activities (for example, mineral exploration and development 

activities, pipelines, power lines, roads, recreation sites, fences, and wells) that could reduce water 

quality or degrade wetlands or riparian habitats would avoid the area within 500 feet of or on 100-

year flood plains, 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. 

d. Riparian areas would be maintained or improved to enhance forage conditions, provide wildlife 

habitat, and improve stream water quality. 

e. Riparian areas providing sensitive wildlife species habitat would be managed for a seral stage 

appropriate for the benefit of those species, including vertical and horizontal vegetation structure and 

composition. 

Objective 3 Control water runoff from developed sites and maintain soil erosion at appropriate rates for 

natural conditions. 

Actions

a. BMPs and operating standards would be applied to mitigate surface disturbance and control 

nonpoint source erosion (Appendices 3 and 5). 

b. The 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. Proposals for linear crossings in these areas would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. 

c. Surface disturbing and construction activities (for example, mineral exploration and development 

activities, pipelines, power lines, roads, recreation sites, fences, and wells) that could reduce water 

quality or degrade wetlands or riparian habitats would avoid the area within 500 feet of or on 100-

year flood plains, 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. 

d. Commercial outfitter camps within 500 feet of springs and seeps, streams, and in riparian areas 

would be considered on a case-by-case basis and could be restricted. 

e. Interim reclamation standards would be developed to reduce soil erosion on a project- or sitespecific basis. Emphasis would be placed on areas adjacent to waters and wetlands. 

f. Where threats to Class I waters are identified from federal lands or management actions, or 

approved public land uses, 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, saline soils potentially affected by management activities. 

Objective 4 Point source pollution would be addressed under the guidance of appropriate Wyoming state 

and federal agencies, including but not limited to WDEQ, WSEO, and EPA. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-96 Pinedale RMP 

Actions

a. BLM would cooperate with the state as it develops source water and wellhead protection plans to 

protect drinking water sources. 

b. In areas of concentrated oil and gas development, a groundwater monitoring program could be 

established to detect pollution and ensure that the groundwater resource remains unaffected. 

Wildland Fire and Fuels Management 

Management Goals 

Protect firefighters, public safety, and private property.

Maintain a landscape of diverse plant communities and successional stages that would have been 

produced by historic fire regimes. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 No loss of life or improved property losses would occur from wildland fire. 

Actions

a. Wildland fire mitigation and fuels activities would be managed to provide for firefighter and public 

safety as a first priority. Public lands within intermixed landownership areas would be managed in 

association with the adjoining and nearby private and state lands. 

b. Areas of mixed landownership, communities at risk as identified in the Federal Register, Volume 

66, Number 160, 2001 (Antelope Run, Beaver Creek area, Boulder, Cottonwood Creek, Daniel, Forty 

Rod, Hoback Ranches, New Fork, Pinedale, Pocket Creek, and Upper Green); urban and industrial 

interface areas; and areas containing high-priority resource values would have high priority for 

response to wildland fires and/or for fuels reduction and mitigation. Wildland fire suppression 

activities would be based on the AMR (see Glossary). 

Objective 2 Use prescribed fire and WFURB to meet vegetation goals and to return the ecosystem to presuppression composition, structure, and function where possible. 

Actions

a. BLM would evaluate and include, when possible, all BLM lands abutting the Bridger Teton 

National Forest, including the Scab Creek and Lake Mountain WSAs, into WFURB areas, working in 

conjunction with the USFS to have a single integrated WFURB area. 

b. Prescribed fire would be used, where possible, on all BLM-administered lands to emulate the 

return intervals of natural fire and to restore the vegetation to Condition Class I in Fire Regimes I, II, 

and III. 

c. Where reintroduction of fire onto the landscape is not feasible due to ecological condition or 

industrial or urban development, mechanical and chemical methods would be used to manage the 

vegetation toward the DPC. 

d. In the WUI or Industrial Interface, fuels reduction methods best suited to the area would be used to 

reduce the risk of catastrophic fire to these areas. 

Objective 3 Manage wildfire with minimal damage to other resources. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-97 

Actions

a. Vehicles and equipment used for fire suppression would be subject to the OHV restrictions 

applicable in the area of the fire. 

b. Use of fire suppression chemicals, including foaming agents and surfactants, would not be allowed 

within 500 feet of surface water. 

c. Movement of waters from whirling-disease-positive to whirling-disease-negative waters would be 

prohibited. 

d. Fire suppression activities in areas of known sensitive species habitat and fragile or erosive soils 

would avoid damage to these other resources. 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management 

Management Goals 

Maintain or enhance aquatic and wildlife habitat. 

Maintain functioning big game habitats and migration routes. 

In elk feedgrounds, maintain or improve habitat quality and provide for continued use of the areas as elk 

feedgrounds. Reduce dependence of elk on feedgrounds by improving habitat quality on native winter 

ranges. 

Sustain the sagebrush biome on a landscape scale to provide the amount, continuity, and quality of habitat 

necessary to maintain sustainable populations of sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species. 

Maintain or enhance forested habitats to support wildlife diversity and forest health. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Maintain sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed habitats to protect wildlife resource 

values while providing for multiple use management. 

Action

a. The planning area would be delineated into three distinct, noncontiguous wildlife management 

zones for the purpose of oil and gas activities (Map 2-8) as follows: 

• Intensively Developed Fields (Map 2-8) would be managed for intensive oil and 

gas activities while protecting habitats and minimizing direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts to the extent practicable. 

• Traditional Leasing Areas (Map 2-8) would be managed for protection of 

important values during oil and gas exploration but would provide opportunity 

for intensive oil and gas activities. 

• Unavailable Areas (Map 2-8) would be managed for protection of wildlife 

habitats through indefinite postponement of the availability of lands for oil and 

gas leasing. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-98 Pinedale RMP 

Objective 2 Maintain sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed greater sage-grouse habitats to ensure 

long-term species sustainability and functioning habitats within the planning area. 

Actions

Intensively Developed Fields 

a. All vehicle use would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

b. Surface disturbing activities would be subject to mitigation to minimize direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts. 

c. Surface disturbing activities would be designed and implemented to minimize impacts to greater 

sage-grouse winter concentration areas to the extent practicable. 

d. New power lines would be buried where technologically feasible. 

e. Noise-generating activities would be minimized through the application of BMPs (for example, 

high-efficiency mufflers). 

Traditional Leasing Areas 

a. In suitable greater sage-grouse habitats, including nesting, early brood rearing, and winter 

concentration areas, vehicular activities would be restricted to existing roads and trails yearlong. 

b. No surface disturbing or disruptive activities or human presence would be allowed within 1 mile of 

known active leks during strutting season (March 1 through May 15). 

c. NSO would be allowed in all suitable nesting habitats within 3 miles of active greater sage-grouse 

leks (Map 2-28). 

d. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be prohibited in all suitable nesting habitats 

within 3 miles of active greater sage-grouse leks from March 15 through July 15. 

e. Disruptive activities would be prohibited in all greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas. 

f. No new structures more than 15 feet in height would be permitted within 2 miles of sage-grouse 

leks. 

g. 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 Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

(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. 

h. Noise from gas compression and other sources would be limited by imposing the best available 

noise control technologies. 

i. New power lines would be buried where technologically feasible. 

j. No exceptions to wildlife stipulations would be granted in these areas. 

Unavailable Areas 

a. In suitable greater sage-grouse habitats, including nesting, early brood rearing, and winter 

concentration areas, vehicular activities would be restricted to existing roads and trails yearlong. 

b. No surface disturbing or disruptive activities or human presence would be allowed within 1 mile of 

known active leks during strutting season (March 1 through May 15). 

c. NSO would be allowed in all suitable nesting habitats within 3 miles of active greater sage-grouse 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-99 

leks (Map 2-28). 

d. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be prohibited in all suitable nesting habitats 

within 3 miles of active greater sage-grouse leks from March 15 through July 15. 

e. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be prohibited in all greater sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas. 

f. No new structures more than 15 feet in height would be permitted within 3 miles of sage-grouse 

leks. 

g. Noise from gas compression and other sources would be limited by imposing the best available 

noise control technologies. 

h. New power lines would be buried where technologically feasible. 

i. 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, or 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. 

j. No exceptions to wildlife stipulations would be granted in these areas. 

Objective 3 Manage big game habitats to protect wildlife resource values. 

Actions

Intensively Developed Fields 

a. Elk feedgrounds would be maintained on public lands. 

b. BLM permitted activities would be designed and implemented to minimize impacts to big game 

during migration. 

c. Permitted activities would be designed and implemented to minimize impacts in big game 

parturition areas from May 1 through June 30. 

d. Surface activities would be designed and implemented to minimize impacts in big game crucial 

winter ranges from November 15 through April 30 (Map 3-20). 

e. Transportation planning for oil and gas development would be designed and implemented to 

minimize cumulative impacts. 

f. To minimize fragmentation and human presence in winter ranges, access to big game crucial winter 

ranges would be limited to existing developed access routes, or in areas of new development, not 

more than two access points open year-round. 

Traditional Leasing Areas 

a. Elk feedgrounds would be maintained on public lands. 

b. NSO would be allowed in known and newly identified big game migration routes and bottlenecks. 

c. Permitted activities would be prohibited in big game parturition areas from May 1 through June 30. 

d. Surface occupancy would be prohibited on big game crucial winter ranges (293,580 acres) and 

parturition areas (48,740 acres).

e. To minimize fragmentation and human presence in winter ranges, access to big game crucial winter 

ranges would be limited to existing developed access routes (Map 3-20). 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-100 Pinedale RMP 

f. Transportation planning would be implemented to avoid creating unusable islands of wildlife 

habitat (usable patch size varies by species). 

Unavailable Areas 

a. Elk feedgrounds would be maintained on public lands. 

b. NSO would be allowed in known and newly identified big game migration routes and bottlenecks. 

c. Permitted activities would be prohibited in big game parturition areas from May 1 through June 30. 

d. Surface occupancy would be prohibited on big game crucial winter ranges (349,870 acres) and 

parturition areas (87,030 acres).

e. To minimize fragmentation and human presence in winter ranges, access to big game crucial winter 

ranges would be limited to existing developed access routes (Map 3-20). 

f. No new main arterial access routes would be permitted in the Wind River Front area (358,400 

acres) (Map 2-26). 

g. Transportation planning would be implemented to avoid creating unusable islands of wildlife 

habitat (usable patch size varies by species). 

Objective 4 Maintain sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed sensitive species habitats to ensure 

long-term species sustainability and functioning habitats within the planning area. 

Actions

Intensively Developed Fields 

a. Surveys for Special Status Species would be conducted on BLM-administered public lands and 

mineral estate before any federal project or federal activity would be approved. 

b. Surface disturbing activities for oil and gas would be allowed subject to mitigation to minimize 

cumulative impacts. Other surface disturbing activities would be managed on a case-by-case basis. 

Traditional Leasing Areas 

a. Exploration activities would be intensively mitigated. No exceptions to seasonal restrictions for 

exploration would be permitted. 

b. Permitted activities potentially affecting the habitat of Special Status Species would be considered 

on a case-by-case basis. 

c. Surveys for Special Status Species would be conducted on BLM-administered public lands and 

mineral estate before any federal project or federal activity would be approved. 

1. Mountain plover: Surveys demonstrating presence could result in surface disturbing 

activities being prohibited from April 10 to July 10 on a case-by case-basis. 

2. Pygmy rabbits: Surveys identifying pygmy rabbit burrows would require avoidance of 

the burrow by 50 feet. Pipeline crossings and surface disturbing activities would be 

minimized through ephemeral drainages and in basin, and Wyoming, big sagebrush 

communities. 

3. White-tailed prairie dogs (WTPD): WTPD habitats would be managed to protect 

prairie dogs and their habitat, while allowing for compatible multiple use. 

• Surface disturbing activities would be avoided in WTPD towns greater than 12.5 

acres in size. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-101 

• Motorized vehicle use in all WTPD towns/complexes would be limited to 

designated roads and trails. 

• Prairie dog poisoning would be prohibited in all WTPD towns/complexes, except 

for demonstrated human health and safety needs or for other demonstrated 

emergency reasons. 

• Surveys identifying WTPD burrows would require avoidance of the burrow by 

50 feet. 

4. Other Sensitive Species: If life-cycle activities of sensitive species are identified during 

a survey in an area not protected by timing limitations, surface disturbing activities would 

be delayed as appropriate until wildlife activity is completed. These activities might 

include nesting, early brood rearing, or spawning. There would be no exceptions to this 

policy. 

Unavailable Areas 

a. Permitted activities potentially affecting the habitat of Special Status Species would be considered 

on a case-by-case basis. 

b. Surveys for Special Status Species would be conducted on BLM-administered public lands and 

mineral estate before any federal project or federal activity would be approved. 

1. Mountain plover: Surveys demonstrating presence could result in surface disturbing 

activities being prohibited from April 10 to July 10 on a case-by case-basis. 

2. Pygmy rabbits: Surveys identifying pygmy rabbit burrows would require avoidance of 

the burrow by 50 feet. Pipeline crossings and surface disturbing activities would be 

minimized through ephemeral drainages and in basin, Wyoming, and big sagebrush 

communities. 

3. WTPDs: WTPD habitats would be managed to protect prairie dogs and their habitat, 

while allowing for compatible multiple use. 

• Surface disturbing activities would be avoided in WTPD towns greater than 12.5 

acres in size. 

• Motorized vehicle use in all WTPD towns/complexes would be limited to 

designated roads and trails. 

• Prairie dog poisoning would be prohibited in all WTPD towns/complexes, except 

for demonstrated human health and safety needs or for other demonstrated 

emergency reasons. 

• Surveys identifying WTPD burrows would require avoidance of the burrow by 

50 feet. 

4. Other Sensitive Species: If life-cycle activities of sensitive species are identified during 

a survey in an area not protected by timing limitations, surface disturbing activities would 

be delayed until wildlife activity is completed. These activities might include nesting, 

early brood rearing, or spawning. There would be no exceptions to this policy. 

Objective 5 Provide functioning sagebrush habitats on a landscape scale sufficient to support the planning 

area’s greater sage-grouse, pronghorn, mule deer, and other sagebrush-obligate wildlife species. 

Actions

a. To minimize fragmentation and human presence in winter ranges, access to big game crucial winter 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-102 Pinedale RMP 

ranges would be limited to existing developed access routes. In areas of new development, one yearround access point to each field would be allowed. No new main arterial access routes would be 

permitted in the Wind River Front area (approximately 358,400 acres) (Map 2-26). 

b. Changes in WGFD population objectives would be considered when making habitat management 

decisions. 

c. No exceptions to wildlife habitat timing and distance stipulations would be granted in source 

habitats. 

d. Surface disturbing activities and interim and final reclamation would be designed to maximize and 

increase habitat patch sizes and reduce habitat fragmentation for sagebrush-obligate species, for 

example: 

1. Condensate and produced water would be transported from well locations by pipelines 

rather than trucks. 

2. All surface disturbing activities would be subject to interim and final reclamation 

procedures to reestablish sagebrush habitat function and value. 

3. Transportation planning would be required in all areas to optimize access; minimize 

development footprint, human presence, and habitat fragmentation; and reduce road 

density, duplication of routes, and unnecessary routes. 

e. No new compression facilities would be permitted in the Wind River Front area (approximately 

358,400 acres) (Map 2-26). 

f. Common ROW routes and corridors would be designated to minimize environmental impacts. 

g. To minimize predation of ground-nesting birds and intrusion of viewsheds, new power lines would 

be buried to the extent allowed by technology. 

Objective 6 Provide suitable habitat to completely implement the CAS for CRCT to reduce or eliminate 

threats to CRCT populations.

Actions

a. To protect spawning CRCT, redds, and fry, instream disturbing activities would be prohibited 

between June 1 and August 15. 

b. Projects in CRCT habitats could be approved only if they would not impact these habitats. 

c. Chemical use for the purpose of fisheries management would be prohibited. 

Objective 7 Maintain raptor habitats and territories within the planning area in accordance with the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Actions

Intensively Developed Fields 

a. Before any surface disturbing activities are initiated within potential raptor habitat, surveys would 

be conducted for nesting, roosting, and foraging activity within 1 mile of the proposed activity. 

b. Activities would be designed and mitigated to prevent take of raptors. Proposals would be 

examined case by case to determine potential effects and appropriate mitigation. 

c. Migratory bird exclusion devices would be required on sediment, evaporation, or other types of pits 

containing harmful substances or chemicals. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-103 

Traditional Leasing Areas 

a. Before any surface disturbing activities are initiated within potential raptor habitat, surveys would 

be conducted for nesting, roosting, and foraging activity within 1 mile of the proposed activity. 

b. The following seasonal restrictions for authorized activities near active raptor nests/roosting 

sites/foraging areas would be imposed: 

• February 1 through July 31, within one-half mile of all active raptor nests 

• February 1 through July 31, within 1 mile of all active ferruginous hawk nests 

• April 1 through August 15, within one-half mile of burrowing owl nesting habitat 

• February 1 through August 15, within 1 mile of all bald eagle nests. 

c. Surface occupancy would be prohibited within 1,000 feet of active raptor (golden eagle, osprey, 

Swainson’s hawk, goshawk, prairie falcon, northern harrier, great horned owl, red-tailed hawk, 

burrowing owl, and other raptors) nests; within 1,400 feet of active ferruginous hawk nests, and 

within 2,600 feet of active bald eagle nests.

d. Migratory bird exclusion devices would be required on sediment, evaporation, or other types of pits 

containing harmful substances or chemicals. 

e. Surface disturbing activities and placement of permanent and high-profile facilities would be 

restricted within 1 mile of active raptor nests. 

f. Actions that prohibit raptors from successfully fledging offspring would be prohibited. 

Unavailable Areas 

a. Before any surface disturbing activities are initiated within potential raptor habitat, surveys would 

be conducted for nesting, roosting, and foraging activity within 1 mile of the proposed activity. 

b. The following seasonal restrictions for all activities near active raptor nests/roosting sites/foraging 

areas would be imposed: 

• February 1 through July 31, within one-half mile of all active raptor nests 

• February 1 through July 31, within 1 mile of all active ferruginous hawk nests 

• April 1 through August 15, within one-half mile of burrowing owl nesting 

habitat. 

c. Surface occupancy would be prohibited within 1,000 feet of active raptor (golden eagle, osprey, 

Swainson’s hawk, goshawk, prairie falcon, northern harrier, great horned owl, red-tailed hawk, 

burrowing owl, and other raptors) nests, or within 1,400 feet of active ferruginous hawk nests.

d. Migratory bird exclusion devices would be required on sediment, evaporation, or other types of pits 

containing harmful substances or chemicals. 

e. Surface disturbing activities and placement of permanent and high-profile facilities would be 

restricted within 1 mile of active raptor nests. 

f. Actions that prohibit raptors from successfully fledging offspring would be prohibited. 

Objective 8 Water developments would be constructed to avoid inadvertent injury to wildlife. 

Action

a. Water developments would be designed to protect animals from injury, and water would be made 

accessible for wildlife use with sufficient protective cover to the extent available. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-104 Pinedale RMP 

Special Designations and Management Areas 

Management Goals 

Rock Creek ACEC Management Goals Protect the Rock Creek drainage to ensure quality aquatic 

habitat for the sensitive CRCT and provide crucial winter range for a portion of the Piney elk herd; and 

protect visual resources to maintain VRM Class characteristics. 

Beaver Creek ACEC Management Goal Ensure quality aquatic habitat for the sensitive CRCT and 

protect elk calving habitat. 

Trapper’s Point ACEC Management Goal Preserve cultural and historic resources, viability of the big 

game migration bottleneck, and important livestock trailing use. 

New Fork Potholes ACEC Management Goal Protect unique pothole wildlife habitat for trumpeter 

swans and other migratory waterfowl, elk and deer parturition areas, and geologically unique areas. 

Upper Green River ACEC Management Goals Enhance opportunities for public use and access for 

recreational activities, provide for the health and safety of visitors, protect the area’s recreational and 

natural resource values, and maintain the integrity of mule deer migration routes. 

White-Tailed Prairie Dog ACEC Management Goal Protect prairie dog habitat within the planning 

area. 

Miller Mountain Management Area Management Goal Protect the open space, natural landscape 

values, and crucial big game winter ranges in the area. 

Ross Butte ACEC Management Goal Protect fragile soils and watersheds, sensitive plant species, and 

visual values in the Ross Butte area. 

CCC Ponds ACEC Management Goals Protect the Fremont Lake big game wildlife migration 

bottleneck; protect wildlife habitat, water quality, and visual resources; promote quality recreation 

experiences; and prevent or mitigate degradation of the environment and social experience resulting from 

recreation and other uses. 

Wind River Front Management Area Management Goals Maintain the visual, wildlife habitat, 

recreation, and air quality resources in the management area, and protect the integrity of the U.S. Air 

Force Detachment 489 Seismic Monitoring Station. 

WSA Management Goal Protect wilderness values in all WSAs. 

Wild and Scenic River Areas Management Goals Maintain or enhance the outstandingly remarkable 

scenic, fishery, and ecological values; and maintain the primitive, pristine, rugged, and unaltered 

character of the WSR units. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Provide suitable habitat in the Rock Creek ACEC to 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. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-105 

Actions

a. The entire ACEC area and the Deadline-Graphite elk winter range area (approximately 24,990 

acres) would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing (Map 2-8). 

b. The entire ACEC would be an ROW exclusion area. No ROWs would be permitted, except to 

benefit the CRCT or elk habitat. 

c. The entire ACEC would be managed as a Class I VRM area and would be closed to OHV use, 

including over-the-snow vehicles. 

The following apply to the Rock Creek ACEC drainage area: 

d. Geophysical exploration activities would be prohibited except in areas with existing valid oil and 

gas lease rights. Geophysical exploration activities would be limited to nonvehicular methods. The 

use of explosive charges would be prohibited. 

e. The area would be closed to livestock grazing. 

The following apply to the remainder of the Rock Creek ACEC (outside the drainage area): 

f. Geophysical exploration would be permitted in areas with existing oil and gas lease rights. 

Objective 2 Provide suitable habitat in the Beaver Creek ACEC to support the CAS for CRCT in the 

States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Ensure elk parturition areas are available for use by calving elk. 

Actions

a. The Beaver Creek ACEC would be expanded to approximately 10,160 acres (Map 2-26; Table 

2-30, p. 2-164). The ACEC would be managed to maintain, improve, or restore riparian habitat 

conditions. 

b. The area would be available for oil and gas leasing and related activities with NSO stipulations. 

c. All vehicle use, including geophysical exploration vehicles, would be limited to designated roads 

and trails. 

d. The use of explosive charges would be prohibited. 

e. The ACEC would be managed as a Class II VRM area (Map 2-22). 

f. Surface disturbance within 1,000 feet of streams and on slopes of 15% or greater would be 

prohibited. 

g. Timber cutting would be prohibited in the ACEC. 

h. Roads and ROWs would follow existing alignments. 

i. No creek diversions would be permitted unless they benefit CRCT. 

Objective 3 Ensure that no obstruction to the Trapper’s Point big game migration bottleneck would occur, 

facilitate livestock trailing and gathering, and provide interpretation of cultural sites for the public. 

Actions

a. The Trapper’s Point ACEC (9,540 acres) would be designated (Map 2-26; Table 2-30, p. 2-164). 

b. The ACEC would be closed to all surface disturbing activities except to enhance the viability of the 

big game migration and operations of the Green River Drift, or activities to interpret or enhance 

understanding of the site. 

c. The ACEC would be closed to land disposal and mineral location. A withdrawal would be pursued. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-106 Pinedale RMP 

d. Construction of additional fences in the ACEC would be prohibited, except to enhance the viability 

of the big game migration. 

e. The ACEC would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

f. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails and would be closed from November 15 

through April 30. 

Objective 4 Provide high-quality wildlife habitat in the New Fork Potholes area. 

Actions

a. The New Fork Potholes ACEC (1,820 acres) would be designated (Map 2-26; Table 2-30, p. 2-

164). 

b. Surface disturbing activities would be prohibited except to benefit wildlife habitat, vegetation, or 

watershed values. 

c. The ACEC would be closed to land disposal and mineral location. Withdrawal would be pursued. 

d. The ACEC would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

e. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails, with seasonal closures during crucial 

winter periods. 

Objective 5 Provide the opportunity for recreation activities and facilities, protect natural resources, and 

maintain big game migration routes in the Upper Green River area. 

Actions

a. The Upper Green River ACEC (12,270 acres) would be established (Map 2-26; Table 2-30, p. 2-

164). 

b. The ACEC would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

c. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails (Map 2-27). 

d. No net increase in miles of road would be allowed in the ACEC. 

Objective 6 Maintain habitats sufficient to support WTPD populations. 

Actions

a. The WTPD ACEC (Map 2-26) would be designated. Because 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. 

b. Surveys would be conducted in the ACEC area to verify prairie dog presence before projects are 

approved. 

c. As opportunity arises, land tenure adjustments, including acquisition of lands, easements, or 

exchange, would be pursued to meet ACEC objectives. 

d. The ACEC would be available for oil and gas leasing with intensive management of surface 

disturbing activities. 

1. Surface disturbing activities in WTPD towns greater than 12.5 acres in size would be 

prohibited. 

2. Above-ground facilities within one-quarter mile of WTPD towns greater than 12.5 

acres in size would be equipped with anti-raptor perching devices. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-107 

e. Motorized vehicle use in WTPD towns and complexes would be limited to designated roads and 

trails. 

f. Prairie dog poisoning by animal damage control (ADC) would be prohibited in WTPD towns and 

complexes except for demonstrated human health and safety needs or other demonstrated emergency 

reasons. 

Objective 7 Maintain open space, natural landscapes, and big game winter ranges in the Miller Mountain 

area. 

Actions

a. The Miller Mountain Management Area would be established (approximately 66,440 acres) (Map 

2-26; Table 2-30, p. 2-164). 

b. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. No net increase in miles of road would be 

allowed in the area. No roads would be developed in talus slope areas. 

c. Surface disturbance would be prohibited on slopes greater than 15%. 

d. The Management Area would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

e. Commercial timber production would be prohibited. 

f. The area would be managed as VRM Class II (Map 2-22). 

Objective 8 Maintain sensitive plant communities and control soil erosion in the Ross Butte area. 

Actions

a. The Ross Butte ACEC (35,670 acres) would be designated (Map 2-26; Table 2-30, p. 2-164). 

b. New communication sites would be prohibited in the ACEC. 

c. The ACEC would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

d. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails (Map 2-27). 

e. Surface occupancy on erosive soils and in sensitive plant species habitats would be prohibited. 

f. Surface disturbance would be prohibited on slopes greater than 10%. 

g. The ACEC would be managed as VRM Class II (Map 2-22). 

Objective 9 Maintain recreational values and the viability of the big game migration bottleneck in the 

CCC Ponds area. 

Actions

a. The CCC Ponds ACEC (5,530 acres) would be established (Map 2-26; Table 2-30, p. 2-164). 

b. The ACEC would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

c. The ACEC would be closed to locatable mineral development and land disposal. Withdrawal 

would be pursued. 

d. OHV use, including over-the-snow vehicles, would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

e. Motorized vehicle use would be prohibited on the Pinedale Pathway except for snow removal, 

maintenance, and ski trail grooming. 

f. Proposed projects would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and would be designed to maintain 

the integrity of big game migration routes. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 3 Final EIS 

2-108 Pinedale RMP 

Objective 10 Maintain wildlife habitats, big game migration corridors and bottlenecks, scenic quality, and 

recreation values and uses in the Wind River Front area. 

Actions

a. The Wind River Front Management Area (358,400 acres) would be established (Map 2-26; Table 

2-30, p. 2-164). 

b. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities (for example, gravel pits, campgrounds, and roads) 

would be mitigated to meet Management Area objectives. 

c. Public access to key areas to optimize recreation opportunities would be pursued. 

d. The Management Area would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

e. Geophysical operations would be prohibited except on existing oil and gas leases. 

f. Commercial timber harvest would be prohibited. 

Objective 11 Retain the wilderness characteristics of the Lake Mountain WSA. 

Action

a. The Lake Mountain WSA would be closed to OHV use (13,490 acres). 

Objective 12 Maintain the outstandingly remarkable characteristics of the areas determined suitable for 

inclusion in the WSR System. 

Actions

a. All WSR units would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

b. The East Fork River unit would be managed as suitable for inclusion in the WSR System 

(tentative classification: wild) (1,130 acres) (Map 2-29). 

1. Surface disturbing activities in the East Fork River unit would be prohibited except for 

those activities that would reestablish and/or enhance the outstandingly remarkable 

values. 

2. Commercial timber sales or harvesting would be prohibited. 

3. Salable mineral development would be prohibited. 

4. Geophysical activity would be prohibited. 

5. The area would be closed to OHV use. 

6. The area would be an exclusion area for ROWs. 

7. A withdrawal from land disposal, mineral location, and entry would be pursued. 

8. Water impoundments, diversions, or hydroelectric power facilities would be 

prohibited. 

9. Increases in active grazing preferences and construction of new range improvements in 

the area would be prohibited. 

10. The area would be open only to vegetation treatment or manipulation that would 

restore and/or enhance the outstandingly remarkable scenic and ecological values and 

that would be compatible with a wild waterway classification. 

c. The Scab Creek and Silver Creek units (1,350 acres and 860 acres, respectively) within the Scab 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 3 

Pinedale RMP 2-109 

Creek WSA would be managed as suitable for inclusion in the WSR System (tentative classification: 

wild) (Map 2-29). 

1. Increases in active grazing preferences and construction of new range improvements 

would be prohibited. 

2. The areas would be open only to vegetation treatment or manipulation that would 

restore and/or enhance the outstandingly remarkable scenic and ecological values and 

that would be compatible with a wild waterway area and comply with interim 

management policy for lands under wilderness review. 

d. The Green River unit would be managed as suitable for inclusion in the WSR System (tentative 

classification: scenic) (7,100 acres) (Map 2-29). 

1. The area would be closed to land disposal actions. 

2. The area would be an avoidance area for ROWs. 

3. Increases in active grazing preferences in the area would be prohibited. 

4. Geophysical exploration would be prohibited. 

5. Recreation developments and wildlife and range improvements would be allowed if 

there would be no substantial adverse effects on the natural-like appearance of the lands 

within the waterway corridor and their immediate environment. 

6. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

7. Development of hydroelectric power facilities, flood control dams and levees, water 

supply dams, and major diversions would be prohibited. Maintenance of existing 

facilities and construction of some new structures would be permitted, provided the 

outstandingly remarkable characteristics of the river segment would be maintained or 

enhanced. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-110 Pinedale RMP 

2.5.5 Alternative 4 

Air Quality Management 

Management Goal 

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. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Maintain concentrations of criteria pollutants associated with management actions in 

compliance with applicable state and federal AAQS.

Objective 2 Maintain concentrations of PSD pollutants associated with management actions in 

compliance with the applicable increment. 

Objective 3 Reduce visibility-impairing pollutants in accordance with the reasonable progress goals and 

time frames established within the State of Wyoming’s Regional Haze SIP. 

Objective 4 Reduce atmospheric deposition pollutants to levels below generally accepted LOCs and 

LACs. 

Actions (these actions apply to all four objectives) 

a. BLM would cooperate in the collection of basic climate and meteorological data from remote 

automatic weather stations. 

b. BLM would cooperate with the EPA and State of Wyoming and collaborate with the USFS in 

monitoring for atmospheric deposition (acid rain) and its impacts on the Class I airsheds of the 

Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas. 

c. Special requirements, such as dust abatement, alternative power sources, and BMPs to alleviate air 

quality impacts, would be included on a case-by-case basis in use authorizations within the scope of 

BLM’s authority. 

d. Prescribed burns would be managed to comply with WDEQ-AQD smoke management rules and 

regulations. 

e. BLM would continue to participate in State of the Atmosphere modeling to assess cumulative 

changes to air quality over time. 

f. BLM would work cooperatively with WDEQ-AQD to develop a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) on lease stipulations and COAs, with respect to air quality emissions. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Management Goals 

Protect and preserve significant cultural resources for appropriate use by present and future generations. 

Promote stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of cultural resources. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-111 

Provide opportunities for scientific, educational, recreational, and traditional uses of cultural resources. 

Reduce imminent threats to eligible and unevaluated cultural resources from natural or human-caused 

impacts or potential conflict with other resource uses. 

Develop a public outreach and education program to instill a preservation ethic in the public regarding 

archeological and historic resources. 

Management Objective and Actions 

Objective 1 Protect NRHP-eligible cultural sites and national historic trails. 

Actions

a. Cultural resource management activity plans would be completed and implemented to identify, 

record, preserve, and protect archeological and historic sites. 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. 

b. Select NRHP-eligible sites would be monitored and mitigations would be developed to protect the 

sites from inappropriate use, erosion, trampling, or other damage. 

c. Important cultural areas would be identified and inventoried to protect cultural resources before 

other management actions are proposed. 

d. Surface disturbance and occupancy would be prohibited on communal big game kill sites, Oregon 

Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, select rock alignments, Native American burial locales, Native 

American TCPs, and rock art sites (4,430 acres). The NSO areas would be tailored to the type, 

characteristics, and setting of each site. 

e. Native American consultation would be conducted before lands containing known rock shelters, 

rock alignments, Native American burials, rock art sites, or other sites considered important or sacred 

to modern Native Americans were leased for oil and gas. 

f. The Lander Trail and its visual historic setting would be protected through establishment of a VRM 

Class II designation for about 71,510 acres of public land within 3 miles of contributing segments of 

the trail (Map 2-30). 

g. If a proposed action would diminish the integrity of a historic property’s setting, and the integrity 

of the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility, appropriate mitigation would be applied (Appendices 1, 

3, and 5). 

h. Segments of the Lander Trail where the setting does not contribute to its eligibility for the NRHP 

would be managed as determined by the VRM Class inventory. 

i. Surface occupancy or disturbance would be prohibited except for linear crossings within onequarter 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. 

k. BLM would consult with state and local governments and landowners with respect to all trail 

management issues. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-112 Pinedale RMP 

l. Section 110 inventory acreage would be determined annually based on budget, workload, and 

threats from development, vandalism, and/or erosion. 

m. Conservation easements from willing private landowners could be sought to protect historic 

values. 

n. Acquisition of conservation easements, when agreed upon by all consulting parties, including 

willing private landowners, could serve as a potential mitigation option for adverse effects to national 

historic trails and their setting that may take place at other locations. 

o. Segments of national historic trails not selected for special management consideration would 

continue to be managed as directed in applicable RMPs and other activity plans, and as required by 

the NHPA and the State Protocol between the Wyoming BLM and the Wyoming SHPO. 

Forestry 

Management Goal 

Manage all forest and woodland stands for restoration to pre-suppression composition, structure, and 

function, with generally widely scattered, more fire resilient larger trees and lower numbers of smaller 

trees in the more frequent fire return interval regimes (primarily Douglas fir, limber and white bark pine). 

Realizing that pre-suppression characteristics in the longer fire return intervals forests (lodgepole pine and 

true firs) consisted of stand replacement fires and even aged stands. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Return mixed conifer and lodgepole pine stands (approximately 22,000 acres) to their HRV. 

Actions

a. Existing old growth stands would be identified and managed to comply with HFRA. 

b. Other stands would be managed to move them toward old growth composition, structure, and 

function as appropriate. 

c. Forest health concerns would be identified and stands aggressively managed to improve forest 

health within the guidelines of HFRA. 

d. Forest commodity production and stand improvement activities would be focused on small 

diameter trees, consistent with making the stand fire resilient. Approximately 1,600 CCF/800 MBF of 

forest products would be available for sale annually. Up to 200 acres of forest could be commercially 

or precommercially treated annually. 

e. In stands (Fire Regime IV and V) where stand replacement fires are the norm, even age 

management could be practiced, consistent within the disturbance ecology framework of the 

vegetation type. 

Objective 2 Return woodland ecosystem areas (aspen, aspen/conifer, cottonwood, and other woodland 

ecosystems—15,280 acres) to their HRVs. 

Actions

a. Forest products would be available as a secondary product of management, consistent with forest 

health, landscape restoration, and reduction of forest fuels objectives. 

b. Restoration of aspen stands would be emphasized through removing/reducing conifer and/or 

sagebrush invasion. Prescribed fire and overstory removal of dead and dying aspen would be used to 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-113 

rejuvenate and expand these stands so that watershed and wildlife habitat would be improved, and 

natural fire breaks would be created within the landscape. 

c. Up to 700 acres of woodlands could undergo vegetation treatment per year. 

Objective 3 Restore or emulate natural/historic forest cycles on the forested lands and woodlands within 

the Scab Creek and Lake Mountain WSAs. 

Action

a. Prescribed or wildland fire could be used to achieve vegetation alteration in the WSAs. Mechanical 

surface disturbing activities would be prohibited, and no forest products would be removed from 

WSAs. 

Objective 4 Using HFRA guidelines, maintain identified old growth stands. 

Action

a. All stands would be analyzed for old growth characteristics and their position within the landscape 

before entry by using accepted inventory methods and analysis of previous forest management 

activities. Landscape analysis of the percentage of stands needed to meet old growth standards would 

establish the management goals for the individual stand for their vegetation type would be managed 

to maintain old growth characteristics on a landscape scale. Connectivity of existing old growth areas 

would be maintained at appropriate locations and distribution levels. Old growth, as well as all other 

stands would be maintained using appropriate mechanical and prescribed fire tools to maintain presuppression composition, structure, and function. 

Lands and Realty Management 

Management Goals 

Provide for use of public lands in accordance with federal regulations where compatible with other 

resources. Pursue land tenure adjustments that are in the public interest. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Process land tenure adjustments that would benefit or achieve the goals of other resource 

programs. 

Actions

a. Of the 6,300 acres that meet FLPMA disposal criteria for sale, 790 acres would be available 

(Appendix 14, Map 2-31). 

b. Land acquisitions would be limited to willing buyer and seller with a preference for transactions 

that create no net loss of private land in the affected counties. 

c. Emphasis would be placed on actions that accommodate and enhance wildlife migration routes 

within the PFO. 

Objective 2 Respond to community needs for expansion and economic development. 

Actions

a. Proposals for land tenure adjustments would be considered on a case-by-case basis and according 

to criteria in Appendix 13 (Map 2-31). Before any land tenure adjustments were made, the 

appropriate level of environmental analysis would be conducted on the proposal. Riparian, wetland, 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-114 Pinedale RMP 

and aquatic resources would not be available for sale but could be exchanged for lands of equal or 

greater monetary and/or resource value. 

b. Acquisition of nonfederal lands from willing parties would be considered to meet the goals of 

various resource management programs. Land exchanges would be considered if they would enhance 

other resource values, provide a public benefit, or improve management efficiency in areas of 

scattered or intermingled landownership patterns (Appendix 13). 

c. No lands would be determined suitable for DLE. 

d. Trespass within the planning area would be resolved. BLM would pursue the resolution of 

occupancy, mineral, or other trespass to the benefit of the BLM and the public. 

e. Realty actions that would protect wildlife migration routes would be considered. Public lands 

would be retained to provide for free movement of migrating big game animals at— 

• Trapper’s Point 

• The south end of Fremont Lake (CCC Ponds Area) 

• Other important wildlife migration routes as identified. 

Objective 3 Process ROW applications in a timely manner, applying appropriate mitigation to protect 

resource values.

Actions

a. Energy corridors and criteria would be incorporated. Common ROW routes would be designated, 

where appropriate, to minimize impacts. 

b. ROWs for above-ground power lines would be sited to protect the setting of contributing segments 

of the national historic trails (Map 2-32). 

c. Utility facilities would be restricted to existing routes and designated corridors where practicable, 

including environmental and socioeconomic considerations. Corridor routes would include U.S. 

Highways 189 and 191, and State Highways 189, 191, 350, 351, 352, 353, and 354. New corridors 

could be established as oil and gas fields are developed (Map 3-10). 

d. New power lines would be buried to the extent practicable.

e. Linear ROW crossings in 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas would be considered 

on a case-by-case basis (Map 3-14). 

f. Exceptions to ROW avoidance areas (Map 2-32; Table 2-27, p. 2-160) would be considered if the 

activity would meet the following criteria: 

• Be within the corridors identified under c. 

• 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. 

g. ROWs for communication sites would be processed on a case-by-case basis with the following 

criteria: 

1. Emphasis would be on development on already-existing multiple use sites rather than 

establishing new sites. 

2. Towers on all sites would be restricted to heights not requiring lighting. 

3. All new and replacement towers would be self-supporting and non-guyed. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-115 

4. New users on all sites would be responsible for notifying existing users of frequencies 

and for resolving any interference problems with existing facilities. 

h. Proposals for alternative energy development would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

1. Alternative energy development would be avoided in sensitive areas, including— 

• Raptor concentration areas 

• Neotropical bird migration routes, as determined by site-specific monitoring 

• Within 3 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks 

• Sage-grouse winter concentration areas 

• VRM Class I or II areas 

• WSAs, SRMAs, ACECs, and other SD/MAs 

• Lander Trail, Sublette Cutoff Trail, and sensitive Native American and cultural 

sites identified for NSO stipulations or unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

• Crucial big game winter ranges 

2. Exceptions would be considered if impacts could be mitigated. 

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. 

j. Water disposal pits would be considered on a case-by-case basis in the Intensively Developed 

Areas. 

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 restricted to VRM Class IV areas. 

3. Disposal pits would be bonded to an amount determined by an Authorized Officer. 

k. Reasonable access would be provided to private landowners/private mineral estate holders for 

transportation of products across public lands to access sales pipelines, or to issue other ROWs across 

BLM lands when necessary to support activities on private lands. 

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-

159; Map 2-34). 

Livestock Grazing Management 

Management Goals 

Maintain and/or enhance livestock grazing opportunities and rangeland health. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Maintain, restore, or enhance livestock grazing to meet the Wyoming Standards for 

Rangeland Health and achieve allotment objectives. 

Mitigate direct, indirect, and cumulative livestock forage losses and impacts to livestock grazing 

(including impacts on livestock grazing operational capabilities and production performance) where 

opportunities exist. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-116 Pinedale RMP 

Actions

a. The current grazing preference of 107,907 AUMs would be maintained, unless changes are 

warranted through site-specific monitoring. 

b. Adjustments in AUMs would be considered through implementation of AMPs, additional NEPA 

analysis, and rangeland monitoring. 

c. Livestock grazing in the oil and gas Intensively Developed Areas would incorporate adaptive 

management and collaboration with interested parties, including livestock operators, to examine the 

effects of intense industrial operations on the access to, and availability of, the forage base. 

1. Reasonable and prudent mitigation would be implemented to maintain the availability 

of public lands for authorized livestock grazing use to the extent possible. 

2. Reductions in grazing use in industrialized areas could become necessary if mitigation 

is insufficient to maintain the current level of livestock grazing. 

3. Reductions could be temporary in nature, with AUMs restored to affected permittees 

when appropriate. 

d. Grazing systems would be designed to maintain or improve watershed and range condition; for 

example, through changing seasons of use, implementing rotational or other grazing management 

systems, or development of infrastructure for livestock management. 

e. Livestock grazing in areas of crucial big game winter ranges (Map 3-20) would be managed to 

maintain or enhance vegetation condition and forage availability for wildlife, as appropriate. 

f. Livestock water developments on crucial elk winter ranges would be designed, located, and 

managed to maintain winter elk forage. 

g. Grazing seasons in allotments containing elk parturition areas would be adjusted to begin after June 

1 to reduce the potential for brucellosis transmission. This action would only occur after, and in 

conjunction with, development of a herd management plan through coordination and cooperation with 

the affected grazing permittee and the WGFD. 

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. 

i. Developed recreation sites (approximately 100 acres) and vegetation exclosures (approximately 75 

acres or up to 150 AUMs) would be closed to livestock grazing. 

j. Livestock grazing and range-related improvements would be allowed in the Rock Creek ACEC 

consistent with ACEC objectives. 

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 

• Non-BLM lands made available in cooperation with another agency or entity. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-117 

Forage reserves, once established, would be managed in accordance with the provisions of an 

appropriate activity plan developed in consultation with the interested publics. 

l. In allotments with riparian habitat, grazing management actions would be designed to maintain or 

achieve Proper Functioning Condition. 

m. Mineral supplement blocks would be placed in locations that promote proper grazing distribution 

and prevent inappropriate livestock use on riparian habitat, for example, by locating supplements on 

ridgetops and/or approximately one-quarter mile from riparian habitat. Placement of supplements 

near water sources, such as wells and reservoirs, would consider rangeland objectives, such as grazing 

distribution, wildlife habitat requirements, and reclamation success. Mineral supplement blocks 

would not be placed within one-quarter mile of an occupied sage-grouse lek. Mineral supplement 

blocks would not be placed within one-quarter mile of known special status plant locations. 

n. Livestock grazing management would be based on monitoring of range condition and trend, 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination with livestock grazing permittees and other interested 

parties, and completion of an approved landscape/watershed/AMP with accompanying NEPA 

documentation. 

Minerals Management 

Management Goal 

Provide opportunities for mineral extraction and energy exploration and development to provide resources 

to meet national and local needs while avoiding or otherwise mitigating significant impacts to other 

resource objectives. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 (Intensively Developed Fields) Make federal lands and minerals within existing oil and gas 

fields (175,040 acres) available for intensive oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and 

production (Map 2-9). 

Actions

a. Lands and mineral estate in these areas would be available for lease. 

b. New oil and gas leases would include standard lease stipulations and appropriate NSO and CSU 

stipulations as specifically prescribed in the Cultural, Wildlife, and Recreation sections of this 

alternative. 

c. Exceptions would be considered to allow year-round drilling and development operations on new 

and existing leases (170,670 acres) in Intensively Developed Areas that are currently encumbered by 

seasonal restrictions. Such exceptions would be subject to existing federal laws such as the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and ESA, additional environmental analysis including Cooperating Agency 

coordination and the leaseholder/operator implementing offsetting mitigation to support other 

resource objectives. 

1. This exception would not be applied to seasonal (timing limitation) protection 

measures for T&E and migratory bird species unless consultation with USFWS, 

migratory bird take permits or other sort of permits beyond the scope of BLM’s exception 

process are obtained. 

d. BMPs and other mitigation measures would be applied to mitigate impacts on sensitive habitats 

and other resources (Appendices 3 and 5) to the extent possible and practicable. Post-lease actions 

(activity plans, APDs, Sundry Notices) would be managed under restrictions and COAs developed 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-118 Pinedale RMP 

through programmatic and/or site-specific environmental analysis in coordination with cooperating 

agencies and in consideration of resource objectives. 

e. Accelerated reclamation would be implemented to reestablish habitats. 

f. Water disposal pits would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Objective 2 (Traditional Leasing Areas) Make federal lands and mineral estate as depicted on Map 2-9 

available for oil and gas leasing and exploration in concert with maintaining the viability of non-oil and 

gas resource values and land uses (465,720 acres). 

Actions

a. Lands and mineral estate in these areas would be available for lease. 

b. Mineral leases, including those for minerals other than oil and gas, would be subject to timing 

limitation, CSU and NSO stipulations, and COAs, as well as the additional resource constraints as 

established for surface disturbing and disruptive activities in this alternative. 

c. Existing oil and gas leases (303,140 acres) would be managed under their existing lease terms and 

stipulations. 

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 and other mitigation measures would be applied to mitigate impacts on sensitive 

habitats and other resources (Appendices 3 and 5). 

d. Post-lease actions (APDs, Sundry Notices) would be managed under restrictions and COAs 

developed through programmatic and/or site-specific environmental analysis. Post-lease actions 

(activity plans, APDs, Sundry Notices) would be managed under restrictions and COAs developed 

through programmatic and/or site-specific environmental analysis in coordination with cooperating 

agencies and in consideration of resource objectives. 

e. Lands in these areas could convert to Intensively Developed Fields when bottom-hole well density 

exceeds one well per 160 acres and a surface density of four well pads per 640-acre section. 

Consideration for conversion would depend on (1) a geology and reservoir analysis determination that 

additional well density is needed to efficiently and adequately produce the gas or oil resource; (2) that 

surface resources can be satisfactorily mitigated; and (3) that a project-specific environmental 

documentation is prepared to analyze impacts and to determine operating methods, mitigation, and 

BMPs to be used in the efficient and comprehensive development of the field. 

f. New fields not adjacent to the current Intensively Developed Fields (Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, Big 

Piney-LaBarge, Deer Hills, and Camp/Castle Creek) would require an RMP amendment to be 

designated Intensively Developed Areas. 

g. On-lease water disposal pits would not be allowed. 

Objective 3 (Unavailable Areas) Make federal lands and minerals as depicted on Map 2-9 unavailable for 

oil and gas leasing (439,470 acres). As existing oil and gas leases expire in Unavailable Areas, they would 

not be re-offered for lease, except as necessary to provide drainage protection (as indicated below). 

Actions

a. Lands and mineral estate in these areas would be unavailable for lease. 

b. A one-half mile NSO area would be established in some areas where the Unavailable Areas abut 

lands or mineral estate not managed by BLM (Map 2-9). This one-half mile NSO “buffer” area would 

provide a means for dealing with drainage of resources from BLM mineral estate. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-119 

c. The unavailable for oil and gas leasing designation could be re-valuated in site-specific situations 

under the following circumstances: 

1. Development on adjacent state or private mineral estate is determined by BLM’s 

Reservoir Management Group (RMG) to be draining federal oil and gas resources to 

the extent that an off-setting federal well or wells is/are needed to resolve the drainage 

issue. 

2. Surface resource values (wildlife, cultural, vegetation, visual, livestock grazing, 

recreation, etc.) can be adequately mitigated. 

3. A plan amendment is completed for the conversion. 

d. Existing oil and gas leases (118,190 acres) would be managed under their existing lease terms and 

stipulations. 

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 and operating standards would be applied to mitigate impacts on sensitive 

habitats and other resources (Appendices 3 and 5). 

3. Post-lease actions (APDs, Sundry Notices) would be managed under restrictions and 

COAs developed through the appropriate level of additional environmental analysis in 

coordination with cooperating agencies as appropriate and in consideration of resource 

objectives. 

4. On-lease water disposal pits would not be allowed. 

e. 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 determined necessary by the Authorized Officer. 

Objective 4 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. 

e. Geophysical operations on BLM-administered surface within Native American TCP areas and 

within one-quarter mile of rock art sites would be restricted to designated roads and trails or 

nonvehicle-based methods and would be subject to Native American consultation. 

f. Geophysical operations on post-FLPMA leased or unleased BLM-administered surface within the 

Scab Creek and Lake Mountain WSAs would be considered on a case-by-case basis if the operations 

meet the requirements of the Interim Management Policy for Land under Wilderness Review (BLM 

Handbook H-8550-1). Geophysical operations on pre-FLPMA leased, BLM-administered surface 

within the Lake Mountain WSA would be allowed pursuant to environmental analysis and the preFLPMA requirements in H-8550-1. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-120 Pinedale RMP 

g. Geophysical operations would be allowed on BLM-administered surface within the Wind River 

Front Management Area and the Beaver Creek, Trapper’s Point, and New Fork Potholes ACECs if 

the operations are conducted using nonvehicular methods or on designated roads and trails. 

h. Geophysical activities would be allowed in and within one-quarter mile of developed recreation 

sites if the recreation site is not occupied and the operations are conducted on designated roads and 

trails. 

i. 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. 

j. Geophysical activities that are considered casual use actions would be allowed within one-quarter 

mile of active sage-grouse leks provided that: 

1. Operations are conducted on designated roads and trails. 

2. Operations during the breeding season (March 1 through May 15) are conducted 

between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 

3. A 150-foot wide strip of undisturbed sagebrush is maintained around the perimeter of 

the lek for hiding and escape cover. 

Objective 5 Make coal resources available for leasing and development. 

Action

a. Decisions on lands acceptable for leasing consideration for coal development would be made after 

an application is received and the coal screening process is conducted. 

Objective 6 Lands not withdrawn or segregated from mineral entry would be available for locatable 

mineral exploration and development (1,185,510 acres). 

Actions

a. Locatable mineral activities would be subject to regulatory requirements; resource constraints 

would be based on the undue and unnecessary degradation standard. 

b. New mineral withdrawals (13,770 acres) would be pursued to protect cultural, wildlife, and 

recreational values in the areas identified in Map 2-34 and Table 2-26, p. 2-159. 

Objective 7 Salable mineral resources would be available for development. 

Actions

a. Salable mineral activities would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

b. The planning area would be open to mineral material disposals with the exception of WSAs 

(21,200 acres) (Map 2-33). 

Objective 8 Make other leasable minerals (phosphate, sodium [trona], and geothermal steam) available 

for exploration and development. 

Actions

a. Geothermal leasing and development would be considered and managed under the same objectives, 

management actions, and restrictions, and in the same areas identified as being available for Intensive 

Development and Traditional Leasing Areas for oil and gas leasing and development in this 

alternative. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-121 

b. Management of phosphate, sodium, oil shale, and geothermal steam would be the same as for 

Alternative 1. 

c. Should interest in other leasable minerals materialize in the future, leasing would be considered on 

a case-by-case basis, and the RMP would be amended as appropriate and necessary. 

Paleontology and Natural History 

Management Goal 

Protect significant fossils and known paleontological resources from damage or destruction and facilitate 

suitable scientific, educational, and recreational uses of fossils. 

Management Objective and Action 

Objective 1 Known and newly discovered paleontological resources would be managed to maintain or 

improve current condition. 

Action

a. Areas of unique natural history, important paleontological resources, or particular natural interest, 

including the Pinedale Glacial Area, would be nominated for designation as NNLs, RNAs, or ACECs, 

and managed for protection of their unique values. 

Recreation and Visitor Services Management 

Management Goal 

Provide substantial personal, community, economic, and environmental benefits to local residents and 

visitors through recreational uses of the public lands. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Maintain or enhance the health and viability of recreation-dependent natural resources and 

settings within the planning area. 

Actions

a. A 14-day campsite occupancy limit would apply throughout the planning area. This occupancy 

limit would apply to a 5-mile radius of the campsite and would be restricted to the recreational use of 

public lands. 

b. Commercial operators camping within 200 feet of streams or in riparian areas would be considered 

on a case-by-case basis and could be restricted or prohibited if resource damage occurs. 

c. Dispersed camping within 200 feet of streams or in riparian areas would be allowed but could be 

restricted or prohibited if resource damage occurs. 

d. Surface occupancy within one-quarter mile of developed recreation sites would be prohibited 

except for activities necessary to maintain or enhance recreation sites, or for activities necessary to 

protect or enhance soil, vegetation, watershed health, and similar resources. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-122 Pinedale RMP 

Objective 2 Promote commercial competitive events and organized group activities where appropriate and 

compatible with natural resource management objectives. 

Action

a. SRP applications would be processed except for additional commercial SRPs for river use on the 

Green and New Fork Rivers. 

b. Additional SRPs and allotted river use for commercial SRPs for the Green and New Fork Rivers 

would be determined through the development of a RAMP. 

Objective 3 Manage SRMAs to provide for current and future recreation opportunities. Refer to RMZ 

specific objectives below. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum would be used for each SRMA as a 

guide to maintain, promote, or modify recreation activities, settings, and experiences (Appendix 16). 

a. Scab Creek SRMA—the Scab Creek SRMA would be retained and managed as two RMZs 

(18,460 total acres). The Front Country Zone would consist of BLM access road, trailheads, 

backpacker and pack stock staging areas, campgrounds, area trails, restrooms, trash collection, and 

public information facilities. The Back Country Zone would consist of the remaining area generally 

void of modern, human-created features and located at least one-half mile from any roads. 

1. Recreation Tourism Markets: The Front Country Zone would be a Community and 

Destination Market, and the Back Country Zone would be an Undeveloped Market.

Recreation users would be local residents and regional and national visitors. 

2. The Recreation Market Segment for the Front Country Zone would be developed 

camping, hunting, trailhead access and day use opportunities. The Back Country Zone 

would provide an undeveloped primitive, nonmotorized setting (within the WSA) for 

back country camping, hunting, hiking, backpacking, fishing, rock climbing, and other 

adventure activities requiring a high degree of self-reliance. 

3. The Management Objective for the Scab Creek SRMA would be to manage each zone 

to provide opportunities for the public to achieve targeted, high-quality recreation 

activities and experiences that would produce significant benefits for the visiting public. 

Both zones would provide opportunities for visitors to engage in targeted activities, 

providing a 90% or better realization of targeted benefits (Table 2-17 and Table 2-18). 

4. Recreation Management: A RAMP would be prepared to guide management of 

recreation use while enhancing the area’s natural setting. The Front Country Zone would 

provide quality services and facilities that would accommodate appropriate use levels, 

meet health and safety standards, and protect the area’s natural values. The Back Country 

Zone would maintain trails for nonmotorized foot and equestrian travel except where 

limited to designated roads and trails outside of the WSA. 

5. The Market Strategy for the Front Country Zone onsite would be to use standard BLM 

venues for disseminating recreational user information and regulations, and offsite using 

local BLM publications and Internet technologies. The Market Strategy for the Back 

Country Zone would be to provide basic user information at trailheads on access, 

regulations, and resource protection. The provision of onsite information and directional 

signs would be prohibited unless such facilities complied with BLM Interim Management 

Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (within the WSA). 

6. Recreation Monitoring: BLM personnel and volunteers would regularly conduct 

recreation monitoring. Visitor use surveys would be implemented to determine whether 

targeted outcomes are being achieved. Surveys would be replicated periodically. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-123 

7. Recreation Administration would include: Approval for cost recovery to maintain 

visitor services and manage it as a U.S. Fee Site. Both zones: The issuance of SRPs could 

be considered only for commercial and group activities as appropriate for the area setting. 

Camping would be limited to a 14-day length of stay. The WSA would be closed to 

motorized vehicles and limited to designated roads and trails outside the WSA. The 

SRMA would be administratively unavailable for fluid mineral leasing. VRM Class I 

objectives would apply to the Scab Creek WSA, and VRM Class II objectives would 

apply to the remainder of the SRMA. 

Table 2-17. Targeted Outcomes—Scab Creek SRMA 

Activities Experiences Benefits 

FRONT COUNTRY ZONE

Camping (auto/RV) 

Picnicking and day use 

Hunting 

Equestrian 

Enjoying viewing natural scenery 

Relaxing physically 

Engaging in preferred activities with 

family and friends 

Personal: 

• Nature and aesthetic 

appreciation 

• Social bonding, cohesion, and 

cooperation 

• Personal health and fitness 

Community: 

• Family bonding and better 

family life 

Environmental: 

• Public awareness of 

environmental stewardship 

• Better care of Wind River Front 

Economic: 

• Contribution to tourism and 

local economy 

• Increased attractiveness of 

region as a place to live 

BACKCOUNTRY ZONE

Backpacking 

Pack stock use 

Wilderness camping 

Hunting 

Viewing wildlife and natural scenery 

Relaxing physically 

Engaging in preferred activities with 

family and friends 

Developing outdoor skills 

Wilderness experience 

Personal: 

• Nature and aesthetic 

appreciation 

• Social bonding and cooperation 

• Personal health and fitness 

• Self-reliance 

Community: 

• Improved perceived quality of 

life 

• Family bonding and better 

family life 

• Improved image of BLM 

Environmental: 

• Public awareness of 

environmental stewardship 

• Enhanced wilderness 

experience 

Economic: 

• Contribution to tourism and 

local economy 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-124 Pinedale RMP 

Table 2-18. Prescribed Setting Character - Scab Creek SRMA 

Physical Social Administrative 

FRONT COUNTRY ZONE 

Remoteness: Front Country 

Naturalness: Front Country 

Facilities: Front Country 

Contacts: Middle Country 

Group Size: Middle Country 

Evidence of Use: Front Country 

Types of Encounters: Front Country 

Mechanized Use: Middle Country 

Visitor Services: Front Country 

Management Controls: Front 

Country 

Domestic Animals: Middle Country 

BACK COUNTRY ZONE 

Remoteness: Back Country 

Naturalness: Back Country 

Facilities: Back Country 

Contacts: Back Country 

Group Size: Middle Country 

Evidence of Use: Back Country 

Types of Encounters: Back Country 

Mechanized Use: Back Country 

Visitor Services: Middle to Back 

Country 

Management Controls: Back 

Country 

User Fees: Middle Country 

Domestic Animals: Back Country 

c. The Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA would consist of two RMZs (32,560 total acres)—The 

Front Country Zone would include the Warren Bridge Campground located on the Green River (a 

U.S. Fee Site) and the Warren Bridge River Access complex located upriver of the Warren Bridge on 

U.S. 191 (9-mile river segment). The Warren Bridge Public Access complex is predominately BLM 

land; however, WGFD and private lands (shoreline) is also available to the public. Facilities and 

roads in this zone are primarily BLM roads and trails, developed boat ramps, campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and public information facilities. 

The Middle Country Zone would include the Green and New Fork Rivers comprised of the remaining 

BLM-administered land within one-quarter mile on each side of the Green and New Fork Rivers from 

about U.S. Highway 191, downstream to Fontenelle Reservoir (approximately 110 Green River miles 

and New Fork River miles). This zone would provide important opportunities for the public to enjoy a 

wide variety of recreational activities associated with public land and waters. Public access in this 

zone would be provided by a combination of BLM, private, and Wyoming State lands. Public river 

accesses would vary widely from undeveloped to constructed boat ramps with associated user 

amenities. The majority of developed public accesses in this zone would be provided through the 

cooperative efforts of BLM, WGFD, and private landowners. Developed river accesses would 

typically include boat ramps, restrooms, vehicle parking, user information, and camping facilities 

(Map 3-6). 

1. Recreation Tourism Markets: The Front Country and Middle Country Zones would be 

a Community and Destination Market. Recreation users would be local residents and 

regional and national visitors. 

2. The Recreation Market Segment for the Front Country Zone would be easy and 

contiguous river access where visitors of nearly all abilities could enjoy a myriad of river 

and upland-based recreation activities such as float and wade fishing, adventure floating, 

hunting, hiking, equestrian use, wildlife observation, exceptional scenery, camping, and 

motorized activities. The Recreation Market Segment for the Middle Country Zone 

would be for visitors to enjoy river-related recreation activities in a less structured setting 

where access is more dispersed and amenities are few. A greater degree of self-reliance 

would be required. 

3. The Management Objective for the Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA would be to 

manage each zone to provide opportunities for the public to achieve targeted, high-
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-125 

quality recreation activities and experiences that produce significant benefits for the 

visiting public. Both zones would provide opportunities for visitors to engage in targeted 

activities, providing a 90% or better realization of targeted benefits (Table 2-19 and Table 

2-20). 

4. Recreation Management for both zones: Quality services and facilities would be 

provided that accommodate appropriate use levels, meet health and safety standards, and 

protect the area’s natural values. A recreation management plan would be developed. 

5. The Market Strategy for both zones would be to use standard BLM venues for 

disseminating recreation user information onsite and to use regional BLM publications 

and Internet technologies offsite. A Guide for Recreational River Use would be prepared. 

The Front Country Zone would focus resources on area use information, directional 

signs, brochures, and interpretation of area natural and historic resources. 

6. Recreation Monitoring: BLM personnel and volunteers would regularly conduct 

monitoring for for both zones. Visitor use surveys would be periodically implemented to 

determine whether targeted outcomes are being achieved. 

7. Recreation Administration for both zones: The issuance of additional commercial 

SRPs for guided fishing would not be considered before completion of the RAMP except 

through transfer of an existing permit or by clear demonstration by a bonafide guided 

fishing service provider of continual commercial use of BLM public lands since and 

prior to 1998. Appropriate use levels for commercial, competitive events and groups 

would be determined. Camping would be limited to a 14-day length of stay. Motorized 

vehicles would be limited to designated roads and trails. The Front Country Zone would 

be available for fluid mineral leasing with an NSO stipulation. The Middle Country Zone 

would also be available for fluid mineral leasing, but no surface disturbance would be 

allowed within one-quarter mile on either side of the river. VRM Class II objectives 

would apply to all of the SRMA except for approximately 6 miles of the Green River 

near La Barge, Wyoming. The Warren Bridge Campground would remain a U.S. Fee 

Site. The development of a new float boat access could be located within the Warren 

Bridge Campground. To maintain minimal visitor services and protect resources, the 

Warren Bridge Public Access area could be considered for authorization as a U.S. Fee 

Site. For the Green River where BLM jurisdictions are shared, a cooperative management 

agreement between the Pinedale Field Office and the Rock Springs Field Office would be 

pursued. The purpose of this agreement would be to facilitate uniform recreation 

management. 

Table 2-19. Targeted Outcomes—Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA 

Activities Experiences Benefits 

FRONT COUNTRY ZONE 

Float and wade fishing 

Hunting 

Family and group camping 

Float camping 

Viewing wildlife 

Being with family and friends 

Relaxing physically 

Enjoying viewing natural scenery 

Personal health and fitness 

Personal: 

• Nature and aesthetic 

appreciation 

• Identification with a special 

place 

• Stronger ties with family and 

friends 

• Improved mental and physical 

well-being 

Community/Social: 

• Improved image of land 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-126 Pinedale RMP 

Activities Experiences Benefits 

management agencies 

• Improved perceived quality of 

life 

• Family bonding 

Environmental: 

• Greater environmental 

stewardship of Green River 

• Increased awareness of 

protection and management of 

natural landscapes 

Economic 

• Increased contributions to local 

economy 

MIDDLE COUNTRY ZONE 

Same as Front Country Zone Same as Front Country Zone Same as Front Country Zone 

Table 2-20. Prescribed Setting Character—Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA 

Physical Social Administrative 

FRONT COUNTRY ZONE 

Remoteness: Front Country 

Naturalness: Middle Country 

Facilities: Front Country 

Contacts: Middle and Front Country 

Group Size: Middle and Front 

Country 

Types of Encounters: Front Country 

Personal Gear and Equipment: 

Front Country 

Evidence of Use: Front Country 

Visitor Services: Front Country 

Management Controls: Front 

Country 

Domestic Animals: Middle Country 

Individual User Fees: Middle 

Country 

Mechanized Use: Middle Country 

MIDDLE COUNTRY ZONE 

Remoteness: Front Country and 

Rural 

Naturalness: Front Country and 

Rural 

Facilities: Middle Country 

Group Size: Back Country and 

Middle Country 

Contacts: Middle Country 

Types of Encounters: Middle 

Country 

Personal Gear and Equipment: 

Middle Country and Front Country 

Evidence of Use: Middle Country 

and Front Country 

Visitor Services: Back Country 

Management Controls: Middle 

Country 

Domestic Animals: Middle Country 

Individual User Fees: Primitive 

Mechanized Use: Front Country 

d. Boulder Lake SRMA—The Boulder Lake SRMA would be retained (5,790 acres) and managed 

as a Front Country Zone. The developments consist of the BLM access road, boat launch area, 

restrooms, parking area, two non-fee campgrounds, public information facilities, and undeveloped 

primitive roads and trails. 

1. The Recreation Tourism Market would be a Community and Destination Market.

Recreation users would be local residents and regional and national visitors. 

2. The Recreation Market Segment would be a natural-appearing landscape that provides 

easy lake and river access and substantial opportunities to experience lake and uplandbased recreation activities such as lake fishing and river wade fishing, boating, hunting, 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-127 

camping, equestrian use, cycling, motorized activities, wildlife viewing, and exemplary 

glacial lake scenery. 

3. The Management Objective would be to provide opportunities for the public to achieve 

targeted, high-quality recreation activities and experiences that produce significant 

benefits for the visiting public. The SRMA would provide opportunities for visitors to 

engage in targeted activities, providing a 90% or better realization of targeted benefits 

(Table 2-21 and Table 2-22). 

4. Recreation Management: A RAMP would be prepared to provide quality services and 

facilities that accommodate appropriate use levels, meet health and safety standards, and 

protect the area’s natural values. Appropriate use levels for commercial, competitive 

events and groups would be determined. 

5. The Market Strategy would be to use standard BLM venues for disseminating 

recreational user information and regulations onsite, and to use local BLM publications 

and BLM Internet technologies offsite. 

6. Recreation Monitoring: BLM personnel and volunteers would regularly conduct 

recreation monitoring. Visitor use surveys would be periodically implemented to 

determine whether targeted outcomes are being achieved. 

7. Recreation Administration: To recover costs to maintain minimal visitor services and 

protect resources, the SRMA would be considered for authorization as a U.S. Fee Site. 

Camping would be limited to a 14-day length of stay. Motorized and mechanized upland 

activities would be limited to designated roads and trails. The SRMA would be 

administratively unavailable for fluid mineral leasing. VRM Class II objectives would 

apply to the SRMA. 

Table 2-21. Targeted Outcomes—Boulder Lake SRMA 

Activities Experiences Benefits 

Lake and river fishing 

Boating 

Camping 

Hunting 

Picnicking and day use 

Viewing wildlife and natural Scenery 

Relaxing physically 

Engaging in preferred activities with 

family and friends 

Personal: 

• Nature and aesthetic 

appreciation 

• Social bonding and cooperation 

• Personal health and fitness 

Community: 

• Improved perceived quality of 

life 

• Family bonding and better 

family life 

• Improved image of land 

management agencies 

Environmental: 

• Public awareness of 

environmental stewardship 

Economic: 

• Contribution to tourism and 

local economy 

• Increased attractiveness of 

region as a place to live 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-128 Pinedale RMP 

Table 2-22. Prescribed Setting Character—Boulder Lake SRMA 

Physical Social Administrative 

Remoteness: Middle and Front 

Country 

Naturalness: Middle Country 

Facilities: Front Country 

Contacts: Middle and Front Country 

Group Size: Middle and Front 

Country 

Evidence of Use: Front Country 

Types of Encounters: Front Country 

Mechanized Use: Middle Country 

Visitor Services: Middle Country 

Management Controls: Middle 

Country 

Domestic Animals: Middle Country 

e. The CCC Ponds SRMA would be designated (1,040 acres). The SRMA would be managed as a 

Front Country RMZ. SRMA would consist of a complex of day-use recreation facilities, recreation 

trails, water impoundments, and interpretive facilities. Recreation management and direction would 

be implemented in collaboration with the Bridger Teton National Forest, Sublette County, WGFD, 

Town of Pinedale, and Sublette County School District No. 1 (Map 2-33). 

1. Recreation Tourism Market would be a Community Market. 

2. The Recreation Market Segment for the SRMA would be quick access for area 

residents and visitors to enjoy open space and view spectacular lake and glacial scenery. 

Substantial opportunities exist for visitors to participate in a myriad of nonmotorized 

recreation activities such as wildlife viewing, fishing, hiking, cycling, cross-country 

skiing, and natural and historic resources appreciation. The CCC Ponds SRMA would 

also encompass a portion of the Fremont Lake big game wildlife migration corridor 

bottleneck. 

3. The Management Objective for the SRMA would be to provide opportunities for the 

public to achieve targeted, high-quality recreation activities and experiences that produce 

significant benefits for the visiting public. The SRMA would provide opportunities for 

visitors to engage in targeted activities, providing a 90% or better realization of targeted 

benefits (Table 2-23 and Table 2-24). 

4. Recreation Management: A RAMP would be prepared to provide quality services and 

facilities that accommodate appropriate use levels, meet health and safety standards, and 

protect the area’s natural values. 

5. The Market Strategy would be to use standard BLM venues for disseminating 

recreation user information onsite and offsite using regional BLM publications and 

Internet technologies. 

6. A Recreation Monitoring survey would be implemented to determine whether targeted 

outcomes are being achieved. 

7. Recreation Administration: A withdrawal from mineral location and disposal would be 

pursued. Motorized and mechanized use, including over-the-snow equipment, would be 

limited to designated roads and trails. Motorized vehicle use would be prohibited on the 

Pinedale Pathway, except for snow removal, maintenance, and ski trail grooming. The 

CCC Pond walking trails would be closed to motorized vehicles except for area 

maintenance activities. Proposed projects would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to 

ensure functionality of the migration corridor. SRPs would be considered for group and 

competitive activities to manage use in a manner appropriate for the area setting and 

environment. Camping would be prohibited unless authorized in the RAMP. The SRMA 

would be administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing. VRM Class II objectives 

would apply to the SRMA. The SRMA would be withdrawn from entry for locatable 

minerals. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-129 

Table 2-23. Targeted Outcomes—CCC Ponds SRMA 

Activities Experiences Benefits 

Hiking 

Cycling 

Fishing 

Viewing wildlife 

Education activities 

Skiing 

Being with family and friends 

Relaxing physically 

Physical exercise 

Enjoying viewing natural scenery 

Personal: 

• Health and well-being 

• Nature and aesthetic 

appreciation 

• Identification with a special 

place 

• Social bonding and cooperation 

• Stronger ties with family and 

friends 

Community/Social: 

• Improved image of land 

management agencies 

• Improved perceived quality of 

life 

• Family bonding 

Environmental: 

• Greater environmental 

stewardship 

• Greater preservation of 

Freemont Lake Area 

• Increased awareness of 

protection and management of 

natural landscapes 

Economic: 

• Greater recognition of area as a 

tourist destination 

Table 2-24. Prescribed Setting Character—CCC Pond SRMA 

Physical Social Administrative 

Remoteness: Front Country 

Naturalness: Front Country 

Facilities: Front Country 

Contacts: Middle Country 

Group Size: Middle and Front 

Country 

Evidence of Use: Front Country 

Types of Encounters: Front Country 

Personal Gear and Equipment: 

Middle Country 

Mechanized Use: Front Country 

Visitor Services: Middle Country 

Management Controls: Middle 

Country 

Domestic Animals: Middle Country 

Individual User Fees: Primitive 

Objective 4 Extensive Recreation Management Area (remainder of the Pinedale planning area) Provide 

an array of resource-dependent dispersed recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, motorized use, 

and open space. Management would be extensive rather than intensive. Management actions would be 

custodial in nature and focus on— 

a. The development of new recreation facilities only when necessary to protect human health, safety, 

and natural resource values 

b. The maintenance and enhancement of important public access 

c. The resolution of resource and social conflicts. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-130 Pinedale RMP 

Soils Management 

Management Goal 

Prevent or mitigate impacts on soil stability, productivity, and water infiltration to prevent accelerated 

erosion and chemical degradation of the soil resource, and provide for optimal plant growth. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Prevent, reclaim, or mitigate impacts of erosion and chemical degradation from past surface 

disturbing and other activities within 5 years of RMP implementation. 

Actions

a. BLM would work with state and local cooperating government agencies, communities, bonding 

companies, and operators to achieve the objective. 

b. Disturbed areas would be reclaimed to achieve natural erosion rates and soil productivity to the 

extent practicable. 

Objective 2 Ensure that all newly disturbed areas are successfully reclaimed and that management actions 

are consistent with inherent soil resource capabilities. 

Actions

a. Mitigation, including WDEQ BMPs, would be applied in all areas to limit soil erosion and related 

undesirable conditions with special emphasis in areas with soils that are classified as highly erodible, 

such as Ross Butte, Blue Rim, Milleson Draw, Red Canyon, and the Long Island Watershed (HUC 

1404010108); and saline, fragile, and other sensitive soils (Appendices 3 and 5). 

b. Disturbed areas would be reclaimed to achieve natural erosion rates and soil productivity to the 

extent practicable. 

c. Soils impacted by spills or leaks of chemicals, petroleum products, and produced water would be 

mitigated or reclaimed in coordination with the State of Wyoming. 

d. BLM would coordinate and work with cooperating agencies and conservation districts in 

addressing soil, water, vegetation, and livestock grazing and related issues. 

e. BLM would collaborate with state, local, and federal agencies on Level III soil surveys so that the 

BLM, other agencies, and conservation entities, including the SCCD, have access to adequate and 

useful information to guide the use and management of the soil and related resources. 

Transportation, Access, and Travel Management 

Management Goals 

Provide access for approved public land uses consistent with public health and safety and other resource 

value concerns. 

Provide opportunities for OHV use and activities, including motorized, nonmotorized mechanized, and 

foot travel where compatible with other resource values. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-131 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Provide needed and appropriate ingress, egress, and access routes to and across public lands 

for authorized uses. 

Actions

a. Transportation planning would be completed within 5 years of implementation of the RMP (see 

Appendix 17 and Map A17-1). 

b. Access to county and state roads would be minimized and consolidated where practicable to 

enhance safety and minimize conflict points. Ingress and egress to state highways and county roads 

would be coordinated with the state highway department and counties, respectively. 

c. Reasonable access would be provided across public lands to landlocked private and state lands, 

consistent with BLM Manual 2801.49. 

d. Access across private lands to isolated public land parcels would be acquired from willing 

landowners. 

e. Common ROW routes would be designated, where appropriate, to minimize environmental 

impacts. Road construction would be planned and implemented to avoid creating unusable islands of 

wildlife habitat. 

f. New developments would be designed to minimize the number and miles of new roads, habitat 

fragmentation, and main access points to new fields. 

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. 

Objective 2 Reclaim or mitigate erosion impacts on transportation corridors. 

Actions

a. Road or trail closure and abandonment would be based on desired road or trail densities, demands 

for new roads, closure methods, type of access needed, resource development or protection needs, and 

existing uses. 

b. BLM’s roads, trails, and bridges would be maintained in fair or better condition. 

c. Land users would be required to use BMPs and operating standards for road maintenance 

(Appendices 3 and 5). 

Objective 3 Make public lands available for responsible OHV use where appropriate. 

Actions

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-the-snow equipment, would be limited to existing roads and 

trails unless otherwise specified. 

c. No open OHV use areas would be designated. 

d. The following areas would be closed to motorized access (Map 2-35): 

• The Lake Mountain WSA (13,490 acres) 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-132 Pinedale RMP 

• The Scab Creek WSA (7,710 acres) 

• Rock Creek ACEC (4,960 acres) 

• The Pinedale Pathway, except for maintenance or repair 

• Select rock alignment sites 

• Native American burial locales 

• Communal big game kill sites 

• Holden Hill 

• Known locations of Special Status Plant Species 

• The East Fork WSR unit (1,130 acres). 

e. Motorized vehicle use, except for over-the-snow equipment, would be limited to designated roads 

and trails in the following (Map 2-35): 

• Boulder Lake, Upper Green River, and Scab Creek SRMAs 

• Trapper’s Point ACEC 

• East Fork River/Irish Canyon area 

• Miller Mountain and Ross Butte Management areas 

• Oregon Trail inscription sites, Native American TCPs, Native American burial 

locales, and communal big game kill sites 

• Muddy Creek/Badlands area 

• Green River WSR unit 

• CCC Ponds SRMA 

• Red Canyon area. 

f. The Red Dugway road would be limited to all-terrain vehicles (ATV), horse, and foot traffic (Map 

2-35). 

g. Additional restrictions for seasonal use of over-the-snow recreational motorized equipment would 

apply as appropriate in the following areas: 

• Big game crucial winter range (except designated routes on Map 2-35) 

(November 15 to April 30) 

• Elk feedgrounds (November 15 to April 30) 

• CCC Ponds SRMA (closed year round). 

h. OHV use (including over-the-snow) on BLM roads and off-road use in certain areas would be 

limited on a seasonal basis as needed (Table 2-28, p. 2-162). 

i. Additional restrictions for all motorized equipment would apply as follows: 

• Approximately 2,500 acres between Silver Creek and Cottonwood Creek would 

be closed from November 15 through January 31. 

• Roads could be closed seasonally to avoid damage or to protect resource values. 

j. OHV closures and seasonal restrictions would be effective immediately upon signing of the ROD 

for the RMP. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-133 

k. OHV designations could be changed to Limited to Designated Roads and Trails if the following 

were to occur: 

• Presence of a previously unknown resource 

• Change in resource extent or condition 

• Resource damage to the extent that designation of routes is necessary 

• New information leads to a need to change the OHV designation. 

l. OHV use to conduct necessary tasks, as defined in the Glossary, would be permitted. 

Vegetation Management 

Management Goals 

Maintain and/or enhance native vegetation community health, composition, and diversity in conformance 

with Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health. Reclaim disturbed areas to desired plant communities. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Establish and maintain an accurate ecological site and vegetation inventory for the planning 

area. 

Action

a. BLM would collaborate with stakeholders (federal, state, and local agencies; operators; 

landowners) to identify funding mechanisms and methods to complete vegetation inventory. 

Objective 2 Manage permitted actions to control the spread of and/or eradicate noxious weed infestations. 

Actions

a. BLM would collaborate with Sublette and Lincoln counties in the treatment of noxious weeds 

and/or invasive species. 

b. Mitigation would be applied to all activities to control noxious weeds (Appendices 3 and 5). 

c. Weed control would be achieved through chemical, mechanical, and biological methods. 

d. All vegetation treatments would be assessed for the potential to introduce invasive species before a 

treatment method was selected. 

e. BLM would support and cooperate with efforts to manage and control invasive plant species or 

noxious weeds, including collaboration with local plans and control efforts. 

Objective 3 Ensure Special Status Plant Species habitats are maintained at a level sufficient for long-term 

species sustainability. 

Actions

a. Special Status Plant Species surveys would be required on potential habitats before any project or 

activity was approved. If species were found, all new surface disturbing activities would comply with 

applicable species-specific protective measures. If none were established, BLM would follow 

guidance. For listed species, protective measures would include those found in programmatic 

assessments and biological opinions provided by the USFWS. 

b. Areas where Wyoming BLM sensitive plant species were known to exist would be avoidance areas 

for ROWs. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-134 Pinedale RMP 

c. Known and discovered locations of Special Status Plant Species would be protected and closed 

to— 

• Surface disturbing activities that could adversely affect the plants or their habitat 

• Location of new mining claims (withdrawal from mineral location and entry 

under the land laws would be pursued) 

• Mineral material sales 

• All OHV use, including those vehicles used for geophysical exploration 

activities, surveying, etc. 

• Use of explosives and blasting. 

d. In areas where sensitive plant species were known to exist, OHV use would be limited to 

designated roads and trails. 

e. Where applicants could demonstrate that proposed activities would not impact sensitive plant 

species, permit authorizations would be allowed. 

f. Vehicle use for fire suppression activities in habitat for Special Status Plant Species would be 

subject to consultation with the BLM Fire Resource Advisor. 

Objective 4 Conduct vegetation treatments to maintain important vegetation types and meet vegetation 

management goals. 

Actions

a. Prescribed fire, WFURB, chemical, biological, and mechanical methods, and livestock grazing 

could be used to achieve vegetation goals. 

b. Vegetation treatments would be designed to reduce erosion, protect Special Status Plant Species, 

enhance vegetation community and watershed health, increase forage production, and enhance 

wildlife habitats. 

c. Treatments would be designed to consider the natural role of fire in ecosystem management and to 

restore the natural range of variability in vegetation community types. 

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 rest period. 

e. Vegetation treatments would be designed and implemented to prevent introduction and reduce the 

spread of invasive species. 

Objective 5 Ensure disturbed areas are reclaimed to the original site plant composition and productivity 

over the long term. 

Actions

a. Disturbed areas would be reclaimed to native site plant composition. If reclamation of original 

plant composition is impossible or not desirable, reclamation would achieve a native plant community 

that meets the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health. 

b. Reclamation would be conducted according to operating standards and mitigation measures in 

Appendix 3, as appropriate. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-135 

Visual Resources Management 

Management Goals 

Manage public lands in accordance with VRM objectives. Minimize the impacts on visual resources. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Manage the public lands in a manner that protects the quality of the scenic values of those 

lands. 

Actions

a. VRM classifications would be managed according to Map 2-30 (Table 2-29, p. 2-164): 21,290 

acres would be managed as VRM Class I; 239,520 acres as VRM Class II; 419,410 acres as VRM 

Class III; and 242,660 acres as VRM Class IV. 

b. VRM Class I areas would be managed to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This 

class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management 

activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract 

attention. 

c. VRM Class II areas would be managed to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level 

of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen but 

should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of 

form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

d. VRM Class III areas would be managed to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. 

The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may 

attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the 

basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

e. VRM Class IV areas would be managed to provide for management activities that require major 

modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape could be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus 

of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these 

activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repetition of the basic elements. 

Watershed and Water Quality (Surface Water and Groundwater) Management 

Management Goals 

Minimize adverse impacts on surface water and groundwater resources and recharge areas from public 

land uses. 

Maintain or improve surface water and groundwater quantity and quality consistent with applicable state 

and federal standards and regulations. 

Maintain or reestablish proper watershed, wetland, riparian, and stream channel functions to support 

natural or desired surface water flow regimes and meet state water quality standards and the Wyoming 

Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Prevent, minimize, and/or remediate contributions of nonpoint source pollution from federal lands to all 

receiving waters. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-136 Pinedale RMP 

Prevent, minimize, and/or remediate elevated levels of salinity contribution from federal lands to the 

Colorado River System. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Collaborate with the state to protect designated uses, achieve water quality standards, and 

take appropriate actions in consideration of State of Wyoming established time frames to control causes 

of impairment resulting from BLM-authorized actions and permitted activities and prevent listing of 

additional streams under the Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). 

Actions

a. BLM would coordinate all proposed surface discharges of industrially produced water with WDEQ 

to avoid impacts on other resources. 

b. Sources of stream degradation that occur on public lands would be prevented, minimized, and/or 

remediated in cooperation with WDEQ and authorized land users. 

c. BLM would cooperate with the State of Wyoming, stakeholders, and affected entities, as 

appropriate, to discharge produced water in a manner that causes the least environmental harm and/or 

contributes to beneficial uses. 

d. BLM would participate in the development, implementation, and monitoring of watershed 

management plans and/or total maximum daily loads (TMDL) with interested stakeholders and the 

WDEQ. 

e. 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 3). 

f. Oil and gas operators would be encouraged to develop and implement methods that treat produced 

water. 

g. BLM would continue cooperation with stakeholders in monitoring surface water and groundwater 

resources potentially affected by public land uses. 

h. Produced water from CBNG wells would be treated and disposed of in collaboration and consistent 

with the requirements of the state. 

i. BLM would take appropriate actions to protect the healthy stream channel form and function. 

Objective 2 Meet the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health and maintain or enhance wetland and 

riparian vegetation to achieve Proper Functioning Condition. 

Actions

a. Achieve and/or maintain Proper Functioning Condition as a minimum standard on all riparian and 

wetland areas to control nonpoint source pollution to the extent possible. Wetland and riparian areas 

that show a negative trend and/or do not achieve Proper Functioning Condition would be addressed in 

activity or implementation plans that would move these areas to Proper Functioning Condition. 

b. The 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas would be closed to surface disturbance and 

new permanent facilities (for example, storage tanks, structures, pits). Proposals for linear crossings 

or actions beneficial to the resource in these areas would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

ROWs necessary to provide access to water rights holders would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. 

c. Surface disturbing and construction activities (for example, mineral exploration and development 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-137 

activities, pipelines, power lines, roads, recreation sites, fences, wells) that could reduce water quality 

or degrade wetlands or riparian habitats would avoid the area within 500 feet of 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. 

d. Riparian areas would be maintained or improved to enhance forage conditions, provide wildlife 

habitat, and improve stream water quality. 

e. Riparian areas providing sensitive wildlife species habitat would be managed for a vegetative or 

successional state appropriate for the benefit of those species, including vertical and horizontal 

vegetation structure and composition. 

Objective 3 Control water runoff from developed sites and maintain soil erosion at appropriate rates for 

natural conditions. 

Actions

a. BMPs and operating standards would be applied to mitigate surface disturbance and control 

nonpoint source erosion (Appendices 3 and 5). 

b. The 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas would be closed to surface disturbance or 

new permanent facilities (for example, storage tanks, structures, pits) except those designed and 

implemented to enhance wetland or riparian area condition or function. Proposals for linear crossings 

or actions beneficial to the resource in these areas would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

c. Surface disturbing and construction activities (for example, mineral exploration and development 

activities, pipelines, power lines, roads, recreation sites, fences, wells) that could reduce water quality 

or degrade wetlands or riparian habitats would avoid the area within 500 feet of 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. 

d. Commercial outfitter camps within 200 feet of springs and seeps, streams, and in riparian areas 

would be considered on a case-by-case basis and could be restricted. 

e. Interim reclamation standards would be developed to reduce soil erosion on a project or sitespecific basis. Emphasis would be placed on areas adjacent to waters and wetlands. 

f. Where threats to Class 1 waters are identified from federal lands or management actions, or 

approved public land uses, 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, saline soils potentially affected by management activities. 

Objective 4 Point source pollution would be addressed under the guidance of appropriate State of 

Wyoming and federal agencies, including but not limited to, WDEQ, WSEO, and EPA. 

Actions

a. BLM would cooperate with the state as it develops Source Water and Wellhead Protection Plans to 

protect drinking water sources. 

b. In areas of concentrated oil and gas development where groundwater has been determined to be of 

'High' and 'Moderately High' priority by WDEQ, a groundwater monitoring program would be 

established in collaboration with WDEQ to detect pollution and ensure that the groundwater resource 

remains unaffected. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-138 Pinedale RMP 

c. BLM would protect groundwater quality and known water recharge areas during BLM activities 

and permitted actions (Appendix 3). 

Wildland Fire and Fuels Management 

Management Goals 

Protect firefighters, public safety, and private property, working cooperatively with state and local fire 

authorities to ensure that all high-priority areas of mixed ownership have common interagency goals and 

objectives. 

Maintain a landscape of diverse plant communities and successional stages that would have been 

produced by historic fire regimes. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 No loss of life or improved property losses would occur from wildland fire. 

Actions

a. Wildland fire mitigation and fuels activities would be managed to provide for firefighter and public 

safety as a first priority. Public lands within intermixed landownership areas would be managed in 

association with the adjoining and nearby private and state lands. 

b. Areas of mixed landownership, communities at risk as identified in the Federal Register, Volume 

66, Number 160, 2001 (Antelope Run, Beaver Creek area, Boulder, Cottonwood Creek, Daniel, Forty 

Rod, Hoback Ranches, New Fork, Pinedale, Pocket Creek, and Upper Green); urban and industrial 

interface areas; and areas containing high-priority resource values would have high priority for 

response to wildland fires and/or for fuels reduction and mitigation. Wildland fire suppression 

activities would be based on the AMR (see Glossary). 

Objective 2 Use prescribed fire and WFURB to meet vegetation goals and to return the ecosystem to presuppression composition, structure, and function where possible. 

Actions

a. BLM would evaluate and include when possible all BLM lands abutting the Bridger Teton National 

Forest, including the Scab Creek and Lake Mountain WSAs, into WFURB areas, working in 

conjunction with the USFS to maintain a single, integrated WFURB area. 

b. Prescribed fire would be used where possible on all BLM-administered lands to emulate the return 

intervals of natural fire and to restore the vegetation to Condition Class I in Fire Regimes I, II, and III. 

c. Where reintroduction of fire onto the landscape is not feasible because of ecological condition or 

industrial or urban development, mechanical and chemical methods would be used to manage the 

vegetation toward the DPC. 

d. In the WUI or Industrial Interface, fuels reduction methods best suited to the area would be used to 

reduce the risk of catastrophic fire to these areas. 

Objective 3 Manage wildfire with minimal damage to other resources. 

Actions

a. Vehicles and equipment used for fire suppression would be subject to the OHV restrictions 

applicable in the area of the fire. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-139 

b. Use of fire suppression chemicals, including foaming agents and surfactants, would not be allowed 

within 500 feet of surface water. 

c. Movement of waters from whirling-disease-positive to whirling-disease-negative waters would be 

prohibited. 

d. Fire suppression activities in areas of known sensitive species habitat and fragile or erosive soils 

would avoid damage to these other resources. 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management 

Management Goals 

Maintain or enhance aquatic and wildlife habitat. 

Maintain functioning big game habitats and migration corridors that allow free movement and use of 

habitats. 

In and adjacent to elk feedgrounds, maintain and improve habitat quality and ensure the continued 

viability of the elk feedgrounds. 

Sustain the sagebrush biome on a landscape scale to provide the amount, continuity, and quality of habitat 

necessary to maintain viable populations of sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Maintain sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed habitats to maintain persistent, welldistributed, self-sustaining, and productive populations of all native and desirable non-native fish (e.g., 

brook, brown, and rainbow trout) and wildlife species within the planning area. 

Action

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. 

• Traditional Leasing 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 be made and proceed 

to development, these lands could be moved to Intensively Developed Field 

status under the criteria in the Minerals Section of this Alternative and would be 

subject to mitigation to minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of such 

activities. 

• 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. 

Objective 2 Maintain sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed greater sage-grouse source habitats to 

maintain persistent, well-distributed, self-sustaining, productive populations of sage-grouse within the 

planning area. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-140 Pinedale RMP 

Actions

Intensively Developed Fields 

a. Permitted OHV activities would be allowed for the purposes of oil and gas development activities. 

b. Surface disturbing activities would be allowed subject to mitigation to minimize direct, indirect, 

and cumulative impacts. 

c. Noise generating activities would be minimized through the application of BMPs such as high 

efficiency mufflers. 

d. Surface disturbing activities would be designed and implemented to minimize impacts on greater 

sage-grouse habitats to the extent practicable. 

e. Oil and gas developmental operations would be subject to stipulations and mitigations provided in 

Appendix 3. 

f. New power lines would be buried where technologically feasible to minimize predation of sagegrouse. 

Traditional Leasing Areas 

a. Vehicular activities would be limited to existing roads and trails in accordance with dates 

established for each stage of greater sage-grouse activity as follows: 

• Lekking/strutting (March 1 to May 15) 

• Nesting and early brood rearing (March 15 to July 15) 

• Winter concentration (November 15 to March 14). 

b. Surface disturbing activities would be avoided in suitable nesting and early brood-rearing habitat 

within 2 miles of occupied greater sage-grouse leks from March 15 to July 15. 

c. Human activity would be avoided between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. from March 1 to May 15 within 

one-quarter mile of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. 

d. Surface disturbing activities would be prohibited in suitable habitat within one-quarter mile of 

occupied leks (Map 2-36). 

e. Noise generating activities would be minimized through the application of BMPs, such as high 

efficiency mufflers. 

f. All surface disturbing activities would be prohibited in greater sage-grouse winter concentration 

areas from November 15 through March 15. 

g. Oil and gas development operations would be subject to stipulations and mitigations provided in 

Appendix 3. 

h. New power lines would be buried to the extent technologically feasible to minimize predation of 

sage-grouse. 

i. Placement of permanent and high-profile facilities (greater than 15 feet in height) would be 

restricted within 1 mile (or the visual horizon, whichever is nearer) of leks, or mitigated with raptor 

anti-perching devices. 

Unavailable Areas 

a. 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 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. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-141 

b. Vehicle activities would be limited to existing roads and trails in accordance with dates established 

for each stage of greater sage-grouse activity as follows: 

• Lekking (March 1 to May 15) 

• Nesting and early brood rearing (March 15 to July 15) 

• Winter concentration (November 15 to March 14). 

c. Surface disturbing activities would be avoided in suitable nesting and early brood-rearing habitat 

within 2 miles of occupied greater sage-grouse leks from March 15 to July 15. 

d. Human activity would be avoided between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. from March 1 to May 15 within 

one-quarter mile of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. 

e. Surface disturbing activities would be prohibited in suitable habitat within one-quarter mile of 

occupied leks (Map 2-36). 

f. Noise generating activities would be minimized through the application of BMPs, such as high 

efficiency mufflers. 

g. All surface disturbing activities would be prohibited in greater sage-grouse winter concentration 

areas from November 15 through March 15. 

h. Oil and gas development operations on preexisting leases would be subject to stipulations and 

mitigations provided in Appendix 3. 

i. New power lines would be buried to the extent technologically feasible to minimize predation of 

sage-grouse. 

j. Placement of permanent and high-profile facilities (greater than15 feet) would be restricted within 1 

mile (or the visual horizon, whichever is nearer) of leks, or mitigated with raptor anti-perching 

devices. 

Objective 3 Maintain and enhance big game habitats to support big game populations at WGFD planning 

objective levels. 

Actions

Intensively Developed Fields 

a. Elk feedgrounds would be maintained. 

b. Surface occupancy would be prohibited on elk feedgrounds, except for authorized activities to 

maintain feedground facilities and manage wintering elk. 

c. No unauthorized human presence would be permitted within 2 miles of 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. 

d. BLM would work with the WGFD and affected parties to improve habitat quality in areas 

surrounding feedgrounds. 

e. BLM-permitted activities would be designed and implemented to minimize impacts on big game 

during migration. 

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 3-20) to the extent practicable. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-142 Pinedale RMP 

h. Transportation planning for oil and gas development would be designed and implemented to 

minimize cumulative impacts. 

i. 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 and state-owned lands as well as to valid 

existing federal oil and gas leases. 

j. Oil and gas development operations would be subject to stipulations and mitigations provided in 

Appendix 3. 

Traditional Leasing Areas 

a. Elk feedgrounds would be maintained. 

b. Surface occupancy would be prohibited on elk feedgrounds, except for authorized activities to 

maintain feedground facilities and manage wintering elk. 

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. 

d. BLM would work with the WGFD and affected parties to improve habitat quality in areas 

surrounding feedgrounds. 

e. Big game migration routes would be protected. Known big game migration bottleneck areas would 

be available for oil and gas leasing with NSO restrictions, unless other protection is provided. 

f. BLM-permitted activities would be prohibited in big game parturition areas from May 1 to June 30. 

g. No surface disturbing or disruptive activities would be permitted in big game crucial winter ranges 

from November 15 to April 30 (Map 3-20). 

h. 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 and state-owned lands as well as to valid 

existing federal oil and gas leases. 

i. Transportation planning would be implemented to avoid creating unusable islands of wildlife 

habitat and proliferation of access points (usable patch size varies by species). 

j. Oil and gas developmental operations would be subject to stipulations and mitigations provided in 

Appendix 3. 

Unavailable Areas 

a. 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 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. 

b. Elk feedgrounds would be maintained. 

c. Surface occupancy would be prohibited on feedgrounds, except for authorized activities to maintain 

feedground facilities and manage wintering elk. 

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 be limited to BLM-permitted mineral activities. 

e. BLM would work with the WGFD and affected parties to improve habitat quality in areas 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-143 

surrounding feedgrounds. 

f. Big game migration routes would be protected. 

g. BLM-permitted activities would be prohibited in big game parturition areas from May 1 through 

June 30. 

h. No surface disturbing or disruptive activities would be permitted in big game crucial winter ranges 

from November 15 through April 30 (Map 3-20). 

i. 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 as well as to valid 

existing federal oil and gas leases. 

j. Transportation planning would be implemented to avoid creating unusable islands of wildlife 

habitat and proliferation of access points (usable habitat patch size varies by species). 

k. Oil and gas developmental operations on preexisting leases would be subject to stipulations and 

mitigations provided in Appendix 3. 

Objective 4 Maintain sufficient, undisturbed, or minimally disturbed sensitive species habitats to ensure 

persistent, well-distributed, self-sustaining, and productive populations of sensitive species within the 

planning area. 

Actions

Intensively Developed Fields 

a. Surveys for Special Status Species would be conducted on BLM-administered public lands and 

mineral estate before any federal project or federal activity was approved. 

b. Oil and gas operations would be subject to stipulations and mitigations provided in Appendix 3. 

Traditional Leasing Areas 

a. Oil and gas exploration activities would be intensively managed and mitigated. No exceptions to 

seasonal restrictions for exploration would be permitted. 

b. Permitted activities potentially affecting the habitat of Special Status Species would be considered 

on a case-by-case basis. 

c. Surveys for Special Status Species would be conducted on BLM-administered public lands and 

mineral estate before any federal project or federal activity was approved. 

1. Mountain plover: Surveys demonstrating presence could result in surface disturbing 

activities being prohibited from April 10 to July 10 on a case-by case-basis. 

2. Pygmy rabbits: Surveys identifying pygmy rabbit burrows would require avoidance of 

the burrow by 50 feet. Pipeline crossings and surface disturbing activities through 

ephemeral drainages and in basin, Wyoming, and big sagebrush communities would be 

minimized. 

3. White-tailed prairie dogs: WTPD habitats would be managed to protect prairie dogs 

and their habitat, while allowing for compatible multiple use. 

• Surface disturbing activities would be avoided in WTPD towns greater than 12.5 

acres in size. 

• Above-ground facilities within one-quarter mile of WTPD towns greater than 

12.5 acres in size would be equipped with anti-raptor perching devices. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-144 Pinedale RMP 

• Motorized vehicle use in all WTPD towns and complexes would be limited to 

designated roads and trails. 

• 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. 

• Surveys identifying WTPD burrows would require avoidance of the burrow by 

50 feet. 

4. Other Sensitive Species: If surveys conducted within areas not subject to timing 

limitations identify sensitive species’ life-cycle activities, surface disturbing activities 

would be delayed until wildlife activity is completed. 

d. Oil and gas development operations would be subject to stipulations and mitigations provided in 

Appendix 3. 

Unavailable Areas 

a. Management actions on existing leases within Unavailable Areas would be designed to protect 

important habitats by excluding surface occupancy and/or disturbance to 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. 

b. Permitted activities potentially affecting the habitat of Special Status Species would be considered 

on a case-by-case basis. 

c. Surveys for Special Status Species would be conducted on BLM-administered public lands and 

mineral estate before any federal project or federal activity was approved. 

1. Mountain plover: Surveys demonstrating presence could result in surface disturbing 

activities being prohibited from April 10 to July 10 on a case-by case-basis. 

2. Pygmy rabbits: Surveys identifying pygmy rabbit burrows would require avoidance of 

the burrow by 50 feet. Pipeline crossings and surface disturbing activities through 

ephemeral drainages and in basin, Wyoming, and big sagebrush communities would be 

minimized. 

3. White-tailed prairie dogs: WTPD habitats would be managed to protect prairie dogs 

and their habitat, while allowing for compatible multiple use. 

• Surface disturbing activities would be avoided in WTPD towns greater than 12.5 

acres in size. 

• Motorized vehicle use in all WTPD towns and complexes would be limited to 

designated roads and trails. 

• 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. 

• Surveys identifying WTPD burrows would require avoidance of the burrow by 

50 feet. 

4. Other Sensitive Species: If life-cycle activities of sensitive species are identified during 

a survey in an area not protected by timing limitations, surface disturbing activities would 

be delayed until wildlife activity is completed. 

d. Oil and gas developmental operations on preexisting leases would be subject to stipulations and 

mitigations provided in Appendix 3. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-145 

Objective 5 Conserve functioning sagebrush habitats on a landscape scale sufficient to support identified 

wildlife objectives. 

Actions

a. Large contiguous patches of sagebrush habitat would be protected through NSO stipulations and 

Unavailable Areas (Map 2-9). 

b. Common ROW routes and corridors would be designated, where appropriate, to minimize 

environmental impacts. 

c. Surface disturbing activities and interim and final reclamation would be designed and implemented 

to minimize impacts, maximize and increase habitat patch sizes, and reduce habitat fragmentation for 

sagebrush-obligate species, for example: 

• Condensate and produced water would be transported from well locations by 

pipelines rather than by trucks when feasible. 

• All surface disturbing activities would be subject to interim and final reclamation 

procedures to reestablish sagebrush habitat function and value. 

• Transportation planning would be required in all areas to optimize access; 

minimize development footprint, human presence, and habitat fragmentation; and 

reduce road density, duplication of routes, and unnecessary routes. 

d. Oil and gas developmental operations on preexisting leases would be subject to stipulations and 

mitigations provided in Appendix 3. 

Objective 6 Collaborate with state and local governments to identify areas for offsite mitigation. 

Objective 7 Provide suitable habitat to ensure long-term species sustainability and widely distributed 

functioning habitats to support the CAS for CRCT in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; the 

‘Three Species’ CAS, and to support all other sensitive fish species. 

Actions

a. To protect spawning CRCT, redds, and fry, instream disturbing activities would be prohibited 

between June 1 and August 15. 

b. Projects in CRCT and other sensitive fish species habitats would be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. Projects could be approved if no impacts on CRCT or other sensitive fish species would be 

caused, or if impacts could be satisfactorily mitigated. 

c. Chemical use for the purpose of fisheries management to enhance native fish populations or to 

remove unwanted fish species in streams or lakes would be allowed. 

d. New or widened stream crossing (roads, pipelines, etc.) would not be allowed in waters with 

genetically pure populations of native cutthroat trout. 

e. Projects that could impact habitats of roundtail chubs, flannelmouth suckers, and bluehead suckers 

(the ‘Three Species’ designated in the CAS) would be designed to avoid or mitigate impacts to these 

or other sensitive fish species. Specific dates for avoidance of instream activities to protect spawning, 

redds, and fry vary by species, stream, and elevation and would be determined case by case and in 

coordination with the WGFD. 

Objective 8 Maintain raptor habitats and territories within the planning area to ensure long-term species 

sustainability and widely distributed functioning habitats in accordance with the MBTA. (See Appendix 

18 for management and conservation measures for bald eagle.) 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-146 Pinedale RMP 

Actions

Intensively Developed Fields 

a. Prior to initiating surface disturbing activities within potential raptor habitat, surveys would be 

conducted for nesting, roosting, and foraging activity within a 1-mile radius of the proposed activity. 

b. Migratory bird exclusion devices would be required on sediment, evaporation, or other types of pits 

containing harmful substances or chemicals. 

c. The following seasonal restrictions for surface disturbing and disruptive activities near active raptor 

nest, roosting sites, and foraging areas would be imposed: 

• February 1 through July 31, within one-half mile of all active raptor nests 

• April 1 through August 15, within one-half mile of burrowing owl nesting habitat 

• March 1 through July 31, within 1 mile of all active ferruginous hawk nests 

• February 1 through August 15, within 1 mile of bald eagle nests. 

d. Surface occupancy (permanent structures) would be prohibited within 1,000 feet of an active raptor 

nest, within 1,400 feet of an active ferruginous hawk nest, or within 2,600 feet of an active bald eagle 

nest. 

e. Oil and gas developmental operations would be subject to stipulations and mitigations provided in 

Appendix 3. 

Traditional Leasing Areas 

a. Prior to initiating surface disturbing activities within potential raptor habitat, surveys would be 

conducted for nesting, roosting, and foraging activity within a 1-mile radius of the proposed activity. 

b. Migratory bird exclusion devices would be required on sediment, evaporation, or other types of pits 

containing harmful substances or chemicals. 

c. The following seasonal restrictions for activities near active raptor nest, roosting sites, and foraging 

areas would be imposed: 

• February 1 through July 31, within one-half mile of all active raptor nests 

• April 1 through August 15, within one-half mile of burrowing owl nesting habitat 

• February 1 through July 31, within 1 mile of all active ferruginous hawk nests 

• February 1 through August 15, within 1 mile of bald eagle nests. 

d. Surface occupancy (permanent structures) would be prohibited within 1,000 feet of an active raptor 

nest, within 1,400 feet of an active ferruginous hawk nest, or within 2,600 feet of an active bald eagle 

nest. 

e. Oil and gas developmental operations would be subject to stipulations and mitigations provided in 

Appendix 3. 

Unavailable Areas 

a. Management actions on existing leases within Unavailable Areas would be designed to protect 

important habitats by excluding surface occupancy and/or disturbance to 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. 

b. Before any surface disturbing activities were initiated within potential raptor habitat, surveys would 

be conducted for nesting, roosting, and foraging activity within 1 mile of the proposed activity. 

c. The following seasonal restrictions for all activities near active raptor nests, roosting sites, and 

foraging areas would be imposed: 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-147 

• February 1 through July 31, within one-half mile of all active raptor nests 

• April 1 through August 15, within one-half mile of burrowing owl nesting habitat 

• February 1 through July 31, within 1 mile of all active ferruginous hawk nests 

• February 1 through August 15, within 1 mile of bald eagle nests. 

c. Surface occupancy (permanent structures) would be prohibited within 1,000 feet of active raptor 

(golden eagle, osprey, Swainson’s hawk, goshawk, prairie falcon, northern harrier, great horned owl, 

red-tailed hawk, burrowing owl, and other raptors) nests, within 1,400 feet of active ferruginous hawk 

nests, or within 2,600 feet of active bald eagle nests. 

d. Migratory bird exclusion devices would be required on sediment, evaporation, or other types of pits 

containing harmful substances or chemicals. 

e. Surface disturbing activities and placement of permanent and high-profile facilities would be 

restricted within 1 mile of active raptor nests. 

f. To minimize impacts on raptors, actions that prohibit raptors from successfully fledging offspring 

would be prohibited. 

g. Oil and gas developmental operations on preexisting leases would be subject to stipulations and 

mitigations provided in Appendix 3. 

Objective 9 Water developments would be constructed to avoid inadvertent injury to wildlife. 

Action

a. Water developments would be designed to protect animals from injury, and water would be made 

accessible for wildlife use with sufficient protective cover to the extent available. 

Special Designations and Management Areas 

The following SD/MAs would be retained, modified, or established. 

Management Goals 

Rock Creek ACEC Management Goals Protect the Rock Creek drainage to enhance wildlife habitat, 

ensure quality aquatic habitat for the sensitive CRCT, provide crucial winter range for a portion of the 

Piney elk herd, and protect visual resources to maintain VRM class characteristics. 

Beaver Creek ACEC Management Goals Enhance wildlife habitat, ensure quality aquatic habitat for 

the sensitive CRCT, and protect elk calving habitat. 

Trapper’s Point ACEC Management Goal Preserve the viability of the big game migration bottleneck, 

cultural and historic resources, and important livestock trailing use. 

New Fork Potholes ACEC Management Goal Protect unique pothole wildlife habitat for trumpeter 

swans and other migratory waterfowl, elk and deer parturition areas, and geologically unique areas. 

Miller Mountain Management Area Management Goal Protect the open space, natural landscape 

values, and crucial big game winter ranges in the Miller Mountain area. 

Ross Butte Management Area Management Goal Protect fragile soils and watersheds, sensitive plant 

species and communities, paleontological and archeological sites, unique geology, and visual values in 

the Ross Butte area. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-148 Pinedale RMP 

Wind River Front Management Area Management Goal Maintain the visual, recreation, and air 

quality resources in the management area, enhance wildlife habitat, and protect the integrity of the U.S. 

Air Force Detachment 489 Seismic Monitoring Station. 

WSA Management Goal Protect wilderness characteristics in all WSAs. 

Wild and Scenic River Areas Management Goals Maintain or enhance the outstandingly remarkable 

scenic, recreation, fishery, ecological, and other values. Maintain the primitive, pristine, rugged, and 

unaltered character of the WSR units. 

Management Objectives and Actions 

Objective 1 Provide suitable habitat within the Rock Creek ACEC to ensure long-term species 

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. 

Actions

a. The Rock Creek ACEC (Map 2-33) would be reduced in size to 4,960 acres by aligning the 

boundary with the Lake Mountain WSA boundary (eliminating the remainder areas outside the Rock 

Creek drainage area). 

b. The ACEC would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

c. The ACEC would be managed as a ROW exclusion area. No ROWs would be permitted except to 

benefit the CRCT or elk habitat. 

d. The area would be managed as a Class I VRM area and would remain closed to OHV use, 

including over-the-snow vehicles. 

e. Geophysical exploration activities would comply with nonimpairment criteria for lands under 

wilderness review. 

f. Livestock grazing and related improvements would be allowed, provided they meet the Wyoming 

Standards for Rangeland Health and the non-impairment criteria for lands under wilderness review. 

g. Forest management activities would comply with nonimpairment criteria for lands under 

wilderness review. 

Objective 2 Provide suitable habitat in the Beaver Creek ACEC to ensure long-term species sustainability 

and functioning habitats and to support the CAS for CRCT in the States of Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming. Ensure elk parturition areas are available for use by calving elk. 

Actions

a. The Beaver Creek ACEC (3,590 acres) would be retained (Map 2-33; Table 2-30, p. 2-164), and 

would be managed to maintain, improve, or restore riparian and elk parturition habitat conditions. 

b. The ACEC would be available for mineral leasing and related activities. 

c. All vehicle use, including geophysical exploration vehicles, would be limited to designated roads 

and trails. 

d. The use of surface and/or above-ground (Poulter shot) explosive charges for geophysical 

exploration would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. 

e. The ACEC would encompass Class III and IV VRM areas (Map 2-30). 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-149 

f. No surface disturbance or clearcutting would be permitted within 1,000 feet of streams or on slopes 

of 25% or greater. Partial timber cutting would be allowed if adverse impacts on the CRCT could be 

mitigated. 

g. Roads and ROW would follow existing alignments unless design and implementation would 

preclude adverse impacts on trout and elk calving habitat. 

h. No water diversion ROWs would be permitted unless they benefit CRCT. 

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. 

Actions

a. The Trapper’s Point ACEC (4,160 acres) would be designated (Map 2-33; Table 2-30, p. 2-164). 

b. Surface disturbing activities would be prohibited except those to enhance the viability of the big 

game migration and operations of the Green River Drift, or activities to interpret or enhance 

understanding of the cultural site. 

c. The ACEC would be closed to land disposal and mineral location. A withdrawal would be pursued. 

d. No additional fences would be constructed in the ACEC area except to enhance the viability of the 

big game migration. 

e. The ACEC would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

f. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails and would be closed from November 15 to 

April 30. 

Objective 4 Provide high-quality wildlife habitat values in the New Fork Potholes area. 

Actions

a. The New Fork Potholes ACEC (1,820 acres) would be designated (Map 2-33; Table 2-30, p. 2-

164). 

b. Surface disturbing activities would be prohibited except those that benefit wildlife habitat, 

vegetation, or watershed values. 

c. The area would be closed to land disposal and mineral location. Withdrawal would be pursued. 

d. The ACEC would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

e. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails, with seasonal closures during crucial 

winter periods. 

Objective 5 Maintain open space, natural landscapes, and crucial big game winter ranges in the Miller 

Mountain area. 

Actions

a. The Miller Mountain Management Area would be established (approximately 66,440 acres) (Map 

2-33; Table 2-30, p. 2-164). 

b. Forest management activities, (for example, harvest, planting, or stand improvement) would be 

implemented, consistent with the HFRA and other objectives for this area. 

c. The management area would be available for oil and gas leasing subject to mitigation. 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-150 Pinedale RMP 

d. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

e. No net increase in miles of road would be allowed. 

f. Surface disturbance would be prohibited on slopes greater than 15%. 

g. Road construction would be prohibited on talus slopes. 

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. 

2-164). 

b. No new communication sites would be permitted in the Management Area. Additional facilities 

could be installed at the existing site on Ross Butte. 

c. The Management Area would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

d. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails (Map 2-35). 

e. COAs would be applied on existing oil and gas lease activities to mitigate impacts on erosive soils 

and sensitive plant species habitat. 

f. The Management Area would be classified VRM Classes II and III (Map 2-30). 

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. 

Actions

a. The Wind River Front Management area (201,240 acres) would be designated (Map 2-33; Table 

2-30, p. 2-164). 

b. Surface disturbing activities (gravel pits, campgrounds, and new roads) would be mitigated to meet 

management area objectives. 

c. Forest management activities would be consistent with the HFRA and management area objectives. 

d. The management area would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

e. Geophysical operations on BLM-administered surface in the Wind River Front Management area 

would be restricted to designated roads and trails or to nonvehicle-based methods. The use of surface 

and/or above-ground (Poulter shot) explosive charges for geophysical exploration would be analyzed 

on a case-by-case basis. 

f. Public access to key recreation areas would be pursued as opportunities arise. 

Objective 8 Maintain the wilderness characteristics of the Lake Mountain WSA. 

Action

a. The Lake Mountain WSA would be closed to OHV use (approximately 13,490 acres). 

Objective 9 Maintain the outstandingly remarkable characteristics of areas determined suitable for 

inclusion in the WSR System. 

Actions

a. WSR units would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternative 4 

Pinedale RMP 2-151 

b. The East Fork River unit would be managed as suitable for inclusion in the WSR System 

(tentative classification: wild (1,130 acres) (Map 2-29). 

1. Surface disturbing activities in the East Fork River unit would be prohibited except for 

those activities that would reestablish and/or enhance the outstandingly remarkable 

values. 

2. The unit would be closed to commercial timber sales or harvesting, salable mineral 

development, and OHV use. 

3. The unit would be an exclusion area for ROWs. 

4. A withdrawal from land disposal, mineral location, and entry would be pursued. 

5. Water impoundments, diversions, or hydroelectric power facilities would be 

prohibited. Diversions necessary to access an adjudicated water right would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis and designed to maintain the outstandingly 

remarkable characteristics of the area. 

6. Increases in active grazing preferences would be prohibited. 

7. Construction of new range improvements could be considered for purposes such as 

grazing protection from fire, insects, or disease, as well as rehabilitation or stabilization 

of damaged resources, provided the area would retain its natural appearance; and the 

practices or structures were compatible and in harmony with the environment. Any 

improvements would be unobtrusive and would not have a significant direct and adverse 

effect on the natural character of the river area. 

8. The unit would be open only to vegetation treatment or manipulation that would 

reestablish and/or enhance the outstandingly remarkable scenic and ecological values and 

are compatible with a wild waterway classification. 

c. The Scab Creek and Silver Creek units (1,350 acres/860 acres respectively) within the Scab Creek 

WSA would be managed as suitable for inclusion in the WSR System (tentative classification: wild) 

(Map 2-29). 

1. Increases in active grazing preferences would be prohibited. 

2. Construction of new range improvements could be considered for purposes such as 

grazing protection from fire, insects, or disease, as well as rehabilitation or stabilization 

of damaged resources, provided the area will retain its natural appearance and the 

practices or structures are compatible and in harmony with the environment. Any 

improvements would be unobtrusive and would not have a significant direct and adverse 

effect on the natural character of the river area. 

2. The units would be open to vegetation treatment or manipulation that would reestablish 

and/or enhance the outstandingly remarkable scenic and ecological values, was 

compatible with a wild waterway area, and complied with interim management policy for 

lands under wilderness review. 

d. The Green River unit would be managed as suitable for inclusion in the WSR System (tentative 

classification: scenic (7,100 acres) (Map 2-29). 

1. The unit would be closed to land disposal actions. 

2. The unit would be an avoidance area for ROWs. 

3. Increases in active grazing preferences in the unit would be prohibited. 

4. Geophysical exploration would be prohibited unless adverse impacts could be 
Chapter 2—Alternative 4 Final EIS 

2-152 Pinedale RMP 

adequately mitigated. 

5. Recreation developments and wildlife and range improvements would be allowed if 

there would be no substantial adverse effects to the natural-like appearance of the lands 

within the waterway corridor and their immediate environment. 

6. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

7. Development of hydroelectric power facilities, flood control dams and levees, water 

supply dams, and major diversions would be prohibited. Maintenance of existing 

facilities and construction of some new structures would be permitted if the outstandingly 

remarkable characteristics of the river segment would be maintained or enhanced. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternatives Summary Table 

Pinedale RMP 2-153 

Table 2-25. Summary Comparison of Alternatives 

Allowable Use or 

Restriction 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural site types protected by NSO restriction 

None 

Communal big game kill sites, Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, and Native American TCPs 

Communal big game kill sites, Native American burial locales, select rock alignments, Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock art sites, Native American TCPs, and rock shelters 

Communal big game kill sites, Native American burial locales, select rock alignments, Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock art sites, Native American TCPs, and rock shelters 

Historic trail protection actions None 

No visual intrusions within one-quarter mile of trails. Additional stipulations on contributing segments of the Lander Trail up to 1 mile from the trail 

VRM Class II designation within 3 miles of contributing portions of the National Historic Trail system. CSU will extend 3 miles or the visual horizon, whichever is closer, of contributing portions of the National Historic Trail system to ensure that surface disturbing activities avoid trail remains and the lands immediately surrounding them. No oil and gas leasing within 1 mile of historic trails No surface disturbance within 1 mile of trails 

VRM Class II designation within 3 miles of contributing portions of the National Historic Trail system. CSU will extend 3 miles or the visual horizon, whichever is closer, of contributing portions of the National Historic Trail system to ensure that surface disturbing activities avoid trail remains and the lands immediately surrounding them. No oil and gas leasing within 1 mile of the Sublette Cutoff No surface disturbance within one-quarter mile of trails 

Cultural site types protected by OHV closure 

Select rock alignments Holden Hill Select rock alignments 

Native American burial locales, communal big game kill sites, select rock alignments, and Native American TCPs 

Select rock alignments Holden Hill 

FORESTRY 

Forest and woodland treatment areas 

Forest: 200 acres annually Woodlands: None 

Forest: 300 acres annually Woodlands: 250 acres annually 

Forest: 200 acres annually Woodlands: 700 acres annually 

Forest: 200 acres annually Woodlands: 700 acres annually 
Chapter 2—Alternatives Summary Table Final EIS 

2-154 Pinedale RMP 

Allowable Use or 

Restriction 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

Estimated timber harvest 3,600 CCF/1,800 MBF annually 2,400 CCF/1,200 MBF annually 1,600 CCF/800 MBF annually 1,600 CCF/800 MBF annually 

LANDS AND REALTY 

New withdrawals proposed (Table 2-26) 

14,540 acres to protect wildlife habitat, recreation, cultural, and wilderness values 

None 

65,750 acres to protect wildlife habitat, visual and recreational values, and cultural sites 

13,770 acres to protect cultural, wildlife habitat, recreation, and WSR values 

Lands considered for disposal 6,380 acres 5,000 acres 790 acres 790 acres Alternative energy development Not applicable 

Permitted throughout the field office where not prohibited by law 

Considered on a case-bycase basis, and prohibited in sensitive areas 

Considered on a case-bycase basis, and avoided in sensitive areas 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

AUMs available for livestock grazing 107,907 157,308 84,000 107,907 

MINERALS 

Oil and gas Unavailable Management Area 0 acres 21,300 acres 641,820 acres 439,470 acres Oil and gas Traditional Leasing Management Area 

0 acres 1,021,320 acres 500,840 acres 461,380 acres 

Oil and gas Intensively Developed Field Management Area 

0 acres 178,420 acres 78,270 acres 175,040 acres 

Areas open to oil and gas leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form 

187,540 acres 866,990 acres 60,220 acres 358,450 acres 

Areas with seasonal restrictions on oil and gas development 

936,050 acres 26,660 acres 308,180 acres 852,180 acres 

Areas protected by CSU restrictions 253,220 acres 295,900 acres 54,740 acres 222,460 acres 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternatives Summary Table 

Pinedale RMP 2-155 

Allowable Use or 

Restriction 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

Areas protected by NSO restrictions 41,300 acres 31,010 acres 379,450 acres 198,370 acres Area unavailable for oil and gas leasing 172,500 acres 21,850 acres 723,200 acres 441,100 acres Estimated number of new federal gas well locations anticipated to be developed 

7,192 7,804 5,209 7,136 

Coal leasing and development Available Available Closed Available Locatable mineral exploration and development 

Open, except for withdrawn lands 

Open, except for withdrawn or segregated lands 

Open, except for withdrawn or segregated lands 

Open, except for withdrawn or segregated lands 

Salable mineral activities Available, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis Available, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis Available, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis Available, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis 

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE USE 

OHV open use areas 247,250 acres 20,640 acres None None Areas closed to OHV use 13,620 acres 8,400 acres 30,350 acres 26,320 acres Areas with OHV use limited to existing roads and trails 

662,060 acres 874,870 acres 751,920 acres 754,480 acres 

Areas with OHV use limited to designated roads and trails 

 None 18,970 acres 140,610 acres 139,000 acres 

Areas with seasonal restrictions on OHV use 577,850 acres 540 acres 518,860 acres 518,860 acres Areas with special restrictions on OHV use None 3,110 acres 1,010 acres 7,230 acres 

RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

Number and acreage of SRMAs 3 SRMAs; 29,410 acres 3 SRMAs; 29,410 acres 3 SRMAs; 142,800 acres 5 SRMAs; 65,030 acres 
Chapter 2—Alternatives Summary Table Final EIS 

2-156 Pinedale RMP 

Allowable Use or 

Restriction 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Vegetation treatment types allowed 

Prescribed and wildland fire; chemical, biological, and mechanical methods 

Prescribed and wildland fire; chemical, biological, and mechanical methods 

Prescribed and wildland fire; biological and mechanical methods 

Prescribed and wildland fire; chemical, biological, and mechanical methods 

WATERSHED AND WATER QUALITY 

Restrictions on surface discharge of produced water 

Not covered under existing RMP 

Discharge to non-isolated surface features if permitted by WDEQ using BLM BMPs (Appendix 3) 

No surface discharge to nonisolated surface features 

No surface discharge to nonisolated surface features. Limited use of produced water for reclamation Produced water would meet WDEQ standards for discharge and follow BLM BMPs (Appendix 3) 

WILDLIFE AND FISH HABITAT 

Wildlife protection restrictions—big game 

No surface disturbing or disruptive activities within big game crucial winter ranges from November 15 to April 30 No surface disturbing or disruptive activities within big game parturition areas from May 1 to June 30 

None 

No surface disturbing or disruptive activities within big game crucial winter ranges from November 15 to April 30 No surface disturbing or disruptive activities within big game parturition areas from May 1 to June 30 NSO in migration routes NSO in migration bottlenecks NSO in crucial winter ranges Deadline-Graphite elk winter range unavailable for leasing NSO within 1 mile of elk feedgrounds 

No surface disturbing or disruptive activities within big game crucial winter ranges from November 15 to April 30 No surface disturbing or disruptive activities within big game parturition areas from May 1 to June 30 Protect migration routes through avoidance NSO in migration bottlenecks No new main arterial access routes to the Mesa or in the Wind River Front areas Deadline-Graphite elk winter range unavailable for leasing 

Wildlife protection restrictions—greater sage-grouse 

Avoid human activity between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. within one-quarter mile of leks from March 1 to May 15 No surface disturbing or disruptive activities within 2 miles of an occupied lek in 

None 

Avoid human activity between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. within one-quarter mile of leks from March 1 to May 15 Vehicles limited to existing roads in nesting habitats NSO within 1 mile of leks 

Avoid human activity between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. within one-quarter mile of leks from March 1 to May 15 NSO within one-quarter mile of leks No surface disturbing or 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Alternatives Summary Table 

Pinedale RMP 2-157 

Allowable Use or 

Restriction 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

nesting habitats from March 15 to July 15 No surface disturbing or disruptive activities in winter habitat from November 15 through March 15 

No activities within 1 mile of leks from March 1 through May 15 No surface disturbing or disruptive activities within 3 miles of leks in nesting habitats from March 15 to July 15 No surface disturbing or disruptive activities in winter concentration areas from November 15 through March 15 No new structures 15 feet in height within 2 miles of breeding habitats 

disruptive activities within 2 miles of leks in nesting habitats from March 15 to July 15 No surface disturbing or disruptive activities in winter concentration areas from November 15 through March 15 No new structures more than 15 feet in height within 2 miles of breeding habitats 

Wildlife protection restrictions—raptors 

No surface disturbing or disruptive activities within one-half mile of raptor nests from February 1 to July 31 

No surface disturbance or permanent or high-profile structures within one-quarter mile of active nests 

Survey for raptors within 1 mile of proposed projects No surface disturbance or permanent or high-profile structures within at least 1 mile of active nests 

Survey for raptors within 1 mile of proposed projects No surface disturbance or permanent or high-profile structures within up to 1 mile of active nests 

Wildlife protection restrictions—fish 

The CRCT would be monitored in cooperation with the WGFD. 

Instream activities such as construction of stream crossings would be designed to protect spawning CRCT, redds, and fry. 

To protect spawning CRCT, redds, and fry, instream disturbing activities would be prohibited between June 1 and August 15. Chemical use for the purpose of fisheries management would be prohibited. 

To protect spawning CRCT, redds, and fry, instream disturbing activities would be prohibited between June 1 and August 15. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Number and acreage of existing SD/MAs 

2 ACECs—8,860 acres 1 management area—243,040 acres 2 WSAs—21,200 acres 

2 WSAs—21,200 acres 1 ACEC—5,270 acres 2 WSAs—21,200 acres 1 ACEC—3,590 acres 2 WSAs—21,200 acres 
Chapter 2—Alternatives Summary Table Final EIS 

2-158 Pinedale RMP 

Allowable Use or 

Restriction 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

Number and acreage of new or modified SD/MAs None 1 ACEC—550 acres 

1 expanded ACEC—10,160 acres 6 new ACECs—65,340 acres 1 expanded management area—358,400 acres 1 new management area—66,440 

1 reduced ACEC—4,960 acres 2 new ACECs—5,980 acres 1 reduced management area—201,240 2 new management areas—102,110 acres 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Acreage Tables 

Pinedale RMP 2-159 

Table 2-26. Proposed Withdrawal Areas by Alternative 

Acres 

Proposed Withdrawal Area1 Alternative 1 

(Continuation 

of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 4 

(Proposed 

RMP) 

Beaver Creek ACEC 3,590 

New Fork Potholes ACEC 1,820 1,820 

Trapper's Point ACEC 9,540 4,000 

Upper Green River ACEC 12,270

Upper Green River SRMA 5,160 

CCC Ponds ACEC 5,530

CCC Ponds SRMA 1,040 

Boulder Lake SRMA 5,790 5,790 

Scab Creek SRMA (outside the WSA) 10,730 

East Fork River Unit WSR 1,090 1,090 

Upper Green Bottleneck 1,200 

Special Status Plant Species 920 920 

Sublette Cutoff Historical Trail (within 1 

mile) 11,960 

Sensitive cultural sites (burials, rock 

alignments, rock inscriptions) 4,620 4,620 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 14,540 0 65,750 13,770 

1

Withdrawal from mineral entry and the public land laws 
Chapter 2—Acreage Tables Final EIS 

2-160 Pinedale RMP 

Table 2-27. ROW Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by Alternative 

Area 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of 

Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 

2 Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 

(Proposed 

RMP) 

ROW AVOIDANCE AREAS1 

Lander Trail X X X 

Sublette Cutoff Trail X X X 

USAF Seismic Monitoring Station (6-

mile radius) X X 

Known paleontological sites X X X 

All SRMAs X X X 

Highly erodible and/or fragile soils X X 

Known locations of Special Status 

Plant Species X X 

Potential habitat for Special Status 

Plant Species X X 

VRM Class II areas X X X 

Floodplains, riparian areas, and 

wetlands2 X X 

Lynx analysis units X X X 

Active raptor nests (within onequarter mile) X 

Active raptor nests (within 1 mile) X X 

Big game migration routes X X 

Active sage-grouse leks (within onequarter mile) X 

All ACECs X X X 

Green River WSR Unit X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 7,720 201,420 555,210 550,210 

ROW EXCLUSION AREAS3 

Communal big game kill sites, 

Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock 

shelters and alignments, Native 

American burial locales, Native 

American TCPs, and rock art sites 

 X X X 

Known locations of Special Status 

Plant Species X 

VRM Class I areas X X 

Elk feedgrounds X X 

Active greater sage-grouse leks 

(within 1 mile) X 

Active greater sage-grouse leks 

(within 200 feet) X X 

Active sage-grouse leks (no buffer) X 

Rock Creek ACEC X X X 

All WSAs X X X X 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Acreage Tables 

Pinedale RMP 2-161 

Area 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of 

Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 

2 Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 

(Proposed 

RMP) 

WSR management units: Scab 

Creek, East Fork, and Silver Creek X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 23,370 28,420 166,980 41,500 

1

Areas with sensitive resource values where ROWs 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 practicable or technologically feasible on lands outside the avoidance area. 

2

Acreage calculated reflects 500 feet from perennial surface waters, wells, springs, and wetland/riparian areas. 

Those avoidance areas not calculated and acres not mapped would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 

3

Areas where future ROWs may be granted only when mandated by law. 
Chapter 2—Acreage Tables Final EIS 

2-162 Pinedale RMP 

Table 2-28. Summary of OHV Use Designations 

Area 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation 

of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 

(Proposed 

RMP) 

CLOSED 

Lake Mountain WSA X X 

Scab Creek WSA X X X X 

Rock Creek ACEC X X X 

Native American TCPs X 

Rock Shelters X 

Native American Burial Locales X X 

Communal Big Game Kill Sites X X 

Select Rock Alignments X X X X 

Holden Hill X X 

Red Dugway/Fish Creek Area X 

East Fork WSR unit X X 

Known Locations of Special Status 

Plant Species X X 

Pinedale Pathway X X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 13,620 8,400 30,350 26,320 

OPEN 

Mt. Airy OHV Area X X 

Big Piney OHV Area X X 

LaBarge OHV Area X 

Desert General Use Area X 

Burma Area X 

Total affected area (in acres) 247,250 20,640 0 0 

LIMITED TO DESIGNATED ROADS AND TRAILS 

Lake Mountain WSA X 

Scab Creek SRMA (outside the WSA) X X X 

Boulder Lake SRMA X X 

Upper Green River SRMA X X 

CCC Ponds SRMA X 

Trapper’s Point ACEC X X X 

CCC Ponds ACEC X 

Ross Butte ACEC X 

Beaver Creek ACEC X X 

New Fork Potholes ACEC X X 

Upper Green River ACEC X 

Ross Butte Management Area X 

Miller Mountain Management Area X X 

East Fork River/Irish Canyon Area X X 

Muddy Creek/Badlands Area X X 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Acreage Tables 

Pinedale RMP 2-163 

Area 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation 

of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 

(Proposed 

RMP) 

Red Canyon X X 

Wyoming Front Area X 

Hoback Area X X 

Soap Holes Area X 

WTPD Towns X X 

Green River WSR Unit X X 

Known Locations of Special Status 

Plant Species X 

Oregon Trail Inscription Sites X X 

Native American TCPs X 

Native American Burial Locales X X 

Communal Big Game Kill Sites X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 0 18,970 140,610 139,000 

LIMITED TO EXISTING ROADS AND TRAILS 

Remainder of the Planning Area X X X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 662,060 874,870 751,920 754,480 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS 

Trapper’s Point ACEC X X X 

Approximately 2,500 acres between 

Silver Creek and Cottonwood Creek X X X 

Big Game Crucial Winter Ranges X X X 

New Fork Potholes ACEC X X 

Elk Feedgrounds X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 577,850 540 518,860 518,860 

SPECIAL LIMITATIONS 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 0 3,110 1,010 7,230 
Chapter 2—Acreage Tables Final EIS 

2-164 Pinedale RMP 

Table 2-29. Visual Resource Management Classification and Acreage 

Classification 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of 

Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 

(Proposed 

RMP) 

I 21,290 0 21,290 21,290 

II 73,430 87,150 393,260 239,520 

III 187,070 118,390 225,830 419,410 

IV 641,140 717,390 282,300 242,660 

Note: All lands in the planning area were rated; however, only BLM-administered lands are managed within the VRM system, 

and only BLM lands are included in the above acreages. (BLM 2004) 

Table 2-30. Summary of Special Designations and Management Areas 

SD/MA Area 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation 

of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

(Proposed RMP)

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) 

Rock Creek ACEC 5,270 5,270 4,960 

Beaver Creek ACEC 3,590 10,160 3,590 

New Fork Potholes ACEC 1,820 1,820 

Trapper’s Point ACEC 550 9,540 4,160 

White-Tailed Prairie Dog 

ACEC --1 

Upper Green River ACEC 12,270 

CCC Ponds ACEC 5,530 

Ross Butte ACEC 35,670 

Total Acres 8,860 550 70,610 14,530 

MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Miller Mountain Management 

Area 66,440 66,440 

Ross Butte Management 

Area 35,670 

Wind River Front 

Management Area 243,040 358,400 201,240 

Total Acres 243,040 0 424,840 303,350 

SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS (SRMA) 

Boulder Lake SRMA 5,790 5,790 5,790 5,790 

Scab Creek SRMA 18,460 18,460 18,460 18,460 

Upper Green River SRMA 5,160 5,160 7,180 

Green and New Fork Rivers 

SRMA 118,550 32,560 

CCC Ponds SRMA 1,040 

Total Acres 29,410 29,410 142,800 65,030 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Acreage Tables 

Pinedale RMP 2-165 

SD/MA Area 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation 

of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

(Proposed RMP)

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSR) 

East Fork River Unit 1,130 1,130 

Green River Unit 7,100 7,100 

Scab Creek Unit 1,350 1,350 

Silver Creek Unit 860 860 

Total Acres 0 0 10,440 10,440 

ACEC PROPOSALS THAT DID NOT MEET THE RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE CRITERIA 

Beaver Creek ACEC expansion 

Rock Creek ACEC expansion 

North Cottonwood Creek 

South Cottonwood Creek 

LaBarge Elk Winter Range 

The Mesa 

Miller Mountain 

Muddy Creek 

Wind River Front 

Wyoming Range Front 

5 Miles Either Side of the Green River 

Soap Holes 

Boulder Lake 

Sage-grouse Winter Concentration Areas 

Tip Top Watershed 

Critical Watersheds and Recharge Areas for Big Piney, Marbleton, and LaBarge 

1 Specific area for the WTPD ACEC cannot be calculated. 
Chapter 2—Acreage Tables Final EIS 

2-166 Pinedale RMP 

Table 2-31. Summary of Surface Disturbance Restrictions 

Area 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation 

of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 

(Proposed 

RMP) 

SURFACE DISTURBANCE PROHIBITED 

Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails (within 

one-quarter mile or the visual horizon, 

whichever is nearer) 

X X 

Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails (within 

one-quarter mile) X X 

Trapper’s Point ACEC X X X 

Communal Big Game Kill Sites X X 

Oregon Trail Inscription Sites X X 

Rock Shelters X X 

Select Rock Alignments X X 

Native American Burial Locales X X 

Native American TCPs X X 

Rock Art Sites X X 

Sensitive Soils on Slopes Greater Than 

8% X 

Known Locations of Special Status Plant 

Species X X 

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter 

Concentration Areas (in the Traditional 

Leasing Areas) 

 X 

Beaver Creek ACEC (on slopes of 15% 

or greater; and within 1,000 feet of 

streams) 

X X X 

New Fork Potholes ACEC X X 

Upper Green River SRMA X 

WTPD Towns Greater Than 12.5 acres 

in size X 

Miller Mountain Management Area (on 

slopes greater than 15%) X X 

Ross Butte ACEC (on slopes greater 

than 10%) X 

Ross Butte ACEC (on erosive soils and 

in sensitive plant species habitats) X 

East Fork WSR Unit X X 

Lander Trail (within one-quarter mile) X 

Suitable Sage-Grouse Habitat (within 

one-quarter mile of occupied leks in the 

oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Suitable Sage-Grouse Habitat (within 

one-quarter mile of occupied leks) X 

Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, and Live 

Water Sources (within 500 feet) X 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Acreage Tables 

Pinedale RMP 2-167 

Area 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation 

of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 

(Proposed 

RMP) 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 166,140 550 33,340 33,240 

CLOSED TO SURFACE OCCUPANCY 

Lander Trail (within 1 mile) X 

Sublette Cutoff (within 1 mile) X X 

Lander Trail (within one-quarter mile) X X 

Sublette Cutoff (within one-quarter mile) X 

Contributing segments of the Lander and 

the Sublette Cutoff Trails (within onequarter mile) 

 X 

Communal Big Game Kill Sites X X X 

Oregon Trail Inscription Sites X X X 

Rock Shelters X X X 

Native American Burial Locales X X X 

Native American TCPs X X X 

Select Rock Alignments X X 

Native American TCPs X X 

Rock Art Sites X X 

Developed Recreation Sites (within onequarter mile) X X X 

Developed Recreation Sites (within onehalf mile) X 

Big Game Migration Routes and 

Bottlenecks (in the oil and gas 

Traditional Leasing and Unavailable 

Areas)

 X 

Big Game Crucial Winter Ranges (in the 

oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Big Game Parturition Areas (in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Active Raptor Nests (within 825 feet) X 

Active raptor nests (within 1,000 feet in 

the oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Active Raptor Nests (within 1,000 feet in 

the oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Active Ferruginous Hawk Nests (within 

1,400 feet in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Active Ferruginous Hawk Nests (within 

1,400 feet in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Elk Feedgrounds X X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 28,500 9,300 641,830 31,870 
Chapter 2—Acreage Tables Final EIS 

2-168 Pinedale RMP 

Area 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation 

of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 

(Proposed 

RMP) 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS 

Known Active Leks During Strutting 

Season X 

Known Active Leks During Strutting 

Season (in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Known Active Leks During Strutting 

Season (in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Suitable Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat 

(within 3 miles of active greater sagegrouse leks in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter 

Concentration Areas (in the oil and gas 

Traditional Leasing and Unavailable 

Areas) 

 X 

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter 

Concentration Areas (in the oil and gas 

Traditional Leasing and Unavailable 

Areas) 

 X 

Big Game Parturition Areas X 

Big Game Parturition Areas (in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Big Game Parturition Areas (in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Big Game Crucial Winter Ranges X 

Big Game Crucial Winter Ranges (in the 

oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Big Game Crucial Winter Ranges (in the 

oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Elk Feedgrounds X X 

Active Raptor Nests (within one-half mile 

in the oil and gas Traditional Leasing 

and Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Active Raptor Nests (within one-half mile 

in the oil and gas Traditional Leasing 

and Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Active Ferruginous Hawk Nests (within 1 

mile in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Active Ferruginous Hawk Nests (within 1 

mile in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

 X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 599,150 0 884,240 535,310 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Acreage Tables 

Pinedale RMP 2-169 

Table 2-32 shows the number of acres of BLM mineral estate that is subject to leasing restrictions for 

conventional oil and gas exploration and development. The acreage values provided in the table are 

organized by the type and level of restriction and mineral potential. 

Table 2-32. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements 

by Hydrocarbon Potential (Approximate Federal Subsurface Acres) 

for Conventional Oil and Gas 

Hydrocarbon Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Conventional Oil and Gas 

Very 

High High Moderate Low None 

Total 

ALTERNATIVE 1 (Continuation of Existing Management) 

UNAVAILABLE FOR LEASING2

Deadline-Graphite elk winter range 0 0 4,740 2,330 13,300 20,370 

Lake Mountain WSA 0 0 0 50 13,440 13,490 

Scab Creek WSA 0 0 0 0 7,710 7,710 

Wind River Front MA 0 5,140 12,850 84,790 48,690 151,470 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 0 5,140 17,940 87,210 62,210 172,500 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4

100-year floodplains on perennial 

channels 110 1,520 17,500 10,460 750 30,350 

Boulder Lake Boat Ramp (within onequarter mile) 0 0 0 130 0 130 

Boulder Lake Campground (within onequarter mile) 0 0 0 490 0 490 

CCC Ponds (within one-quarter mile) 0 0 0 500 0 500 

Elk feedgrounds 0 2,100 6,460 2,760 4,140 15,460 

Fear Boat Access (within one-quarter 

mile) 0 0 180 0 0 180 

48LN300 0 0 240 620 0 860 

Huston Boat Access (within one-quarter 

mile) 0 0 0 450 0 450 

NADP acid rain monitoring site (within 

one-half mile) 0 0 0 340 0 340 

New Fork Campground (within onequarter mile) 0 0 0 470 0 470 

Rock Creek ACEC drainage area 0 0 30 40 4,550 4,620 

Scab Creek Campground (within onequarter mile) 0 0 0 0 130 130 

Stokes Crossing Campground (within 

one-quarter mile) 0 0 0 750 0 750 

Trapper’s Point (cultural site) 0 0 10 360 0 370 

48SU301 0 0 0 170 0 170 

Warren Bridge Campground (within 

one-quarter mile) 0 0 0 110 0 110 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 180 3,380 25,240 12,500 0 41,300 
Chapter 2—Acreage Tables Final EIS 

2-170 Pinedale RMP 

Hydrocarbon Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Conventional Oil and Gas 

Very 

High High Moderate Low None 

Total 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4

100-year floodplains of intermittent 

channels 1,530 2,170 4,850 4,290 60 12,900 

48SU4100 0 0 0 120 0 120 

48SU285 0 0 390 800 0 1,190 

Beaver Creek ACEC 0 0 3,590 0 0 3,590 

Bench Corral winter OHV closure area 0 0 41,890 0 0 41,890 

Boulder Lake Archeological District 0 0 0 470 0 470 

Boulder Lake SRMA 0 0 0 4,070 1,220 5,290 

48SU354 0 0 200 0 0 200 

Class II VRM areas 380 1,470 27,200 60,090 39,700 128,840 

Known locations of Special Status Plant 

Species 50 50 280 550 0 930 

Lander Trail (within one-quarter mile) 0 950 6,420 7,160 0 14,530 

Lynx analysis units 0 11,090 89,050 63,430 37,770 201,340 

Potential habitat for Special Status 

Plant Species ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Rock Creek ACEC (outside the 

drainage area) 0 0 320 70 230 610 

Sage-grouse leks (within one-quarter 

mile) 640 1,380 6,220 4,830 140 13,210 

Scab Creek SRMA (outside the WSA) 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800 

Soap Holes Basin 0 0 7,500 2,880 0 10,390 

Sublette Cutoff (within one-quarter mile) 0 0 1,100 1,150 0 2,250 

Upper Green River SRMA 0 0 0 4,800 0 4,800 

48SU4000 70 100 0 0 0 800 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 3,110 9,910 146,430 93,770 0 253,220 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4

Big game crucial winter range 13,610 25,540 295,280 249,870 52,090 636,390 

Big game parturition range 0 2,270 72,870 45,980 13,410 134,520 

Big game winter OHV closure areas 9,190 11,210 170,240 113,300 11,120 315,060 

Cora Stock Driveway 0 0 0 3,350 0 3,350 

Raptor nests (within one-quarter mile) 1,950 2,480 8,800 8,980 180 22,390 

Sage-grouse nesting habitat 23,160 51,410 198,120 163,600 6,540 442,830 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 28,470 64,890 409,010 376,860 56,820 936,050 

ALTERNATIVE 2 

UNAVAILABLE FOR LEASING2 

Lake Mountain WSA 0 0 0 50 13,440 13,490 

Scab Creek WSA 0 0 0 0 7,710 7,710 

Trapper’s Point ACEC 0 0 20 530 0 550 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Acreage Tables 

Pinedale RMP 2-171 

Hydrocarbon Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Conventional Oil and Gas 

Very 

High High Moderate Low None 

Total 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 0 0 30 570 21,250 21,750 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4

Developed recreation sites (within onequarter mile) 0 0 80 1,210 430 1,720 

Lander Trail east of Hwy 191 (onequarter mile either side of the trail) 0 0 3,540 0 0 3,540 

Lander Trail south of Piney Canyon 

(one-quarter mile either side of the trail) 0 0 820 0 0 8,210 

NADP acid rain monitoring site (within 

one-half mile) 0 0 0 340 0 340 

Sensitive cultural sites 0 50 1,190 2,530 300 4,080 

Unincorporated municipalities or zoned 

rural subdivisions 0 1,570 5,000 14,110 730 21,410 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 0 1,620 7,160 21,100 1,130 31,010 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4

Boulder Lake SRMA, including the Boat 

Ramp and Campground 0 0 0 4,070 1,220 5,290 

Class II VRM areas 380 1,420 16,070 56,990 38,680 113,540 

Known locations of Special Status Plant 

Species 50 50 280 550 0 930 

Lander Trail (within one-quarter mile) 0 950 6,420 7,160 0 14,530 

Lynx Analysis Units 0 11,090 89,050 63,430 37,770 201,340 

Raptor nests (within one-quarter mile) 

(high profile structures) 1,950 2,480 8,800 8,980 180 22,390 

Scab Creek SRMA (outside the WSA) 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800 

Sublette Cutoff (within one-quarter mile) 0 0 1,100 1,150 0 2,250 

Upper Green SRMA (within one-quarter 

mile of the Green River) 0 0 0 4,800 0 4,800 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 2,330 14,260 111,200 128,880 39,230 295,900 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4

Cora Stock Driveway 0 0 0 3,350 0 3,350 

Raptor nests (within 1⁄2 mile in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas 

2,020 2,590 8,880 9,820 0 23,310 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 2,020 2,590 8,880 13,170 0 26,660 

ALTERNATIVE 3 

UNAVAILABLE FOR LEASING 

Beaver Creek ACEC 0 0 10,070 10 0 10,080 

Boulder Lake SRMA 0 0 0 4,070 1,220 5,290 

CCC Ponds ACEC 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 

Deadline-Graphite elk winter range 0 0 4,740 2,330 13,300 20,370 

East Fork River Unit WSR 0 0 0 0 1,090 1,090 

Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA 1,890 2,340 16,170 30,090 0 50,500 
Chapter 2—Acreage Tables Final EIS 

2-172 Pinedale RMP 

Hydrocarbon Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Conventional Oil and Gas 

Very 

High High Moderate Low None 

Total 

Lake Mountain WSA 0 0 0 50 13,440 13,490 

Lander Trail (within 1 mile) 0 4,060 25,160 27,980 0 57,200 

Miller Mountain Management Area 0 0 0 57,210 0 57,210 

New Fork Potholes ACEC 0 0 0 1,820 0 1,820 

Rock Creek ACEC 0 0 30 40 4,550 4,620 

Ross Butte ACEC 0 0 9,720 23,000 0 32,720 

Scab Creek SRMA (including the WSA) 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800 

Sensitive cultural sites 0 50 1,190 2,530 300 4,080 

Sublette Cutoff (within 1 mile) 0 0 3,270 5,200 0 8,470 

Trapper’s Point ACEC 0 0 1,440 8,080 0 9,520 

Upper Green River migration bottleneck 

area 0 0 450 710 0 1,160 

Upper Green River ACEC 0 0 400 11,010 0 11,410 

WSR Units 0 0 0 7,100 3,340 10,440 

Wind River Front Management Area 0 9,750 19,970 177,960 48,320 256,000 

Oil and Gas Unavailable Areas 0 390 206,570 359,020 48,700 614,680 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 1,960 16,310 255,290 387,430 62,210 723,200 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4

100-year floodplains on perennial 

channels 110 1,520 17,500 10,460 750 30,350 

Beaver Creek ACEC 0 0 10,070 10 0 10,080 

Big game crucial winter range (in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

0 8,050 292,940 249,760 52,090 602,840 

Big game migration routes and 

bottlenecks 0 1,950 19,290 10,930 0 32,170 

Big game parturition areas (in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

0 2,270 69,700 45,980 13,410 131,360 

Developed recreation sites (within onehalf mile) 140 370 0 1,390 860 2,760 

Elk feedgrounds 0 6,410 30,090 17,080 14,080 67,660 

Known locations of Special Status Plant 

Species 50 50 280 550 0 930 

NADP acid rain monitoring site (within 

one-half mile) 0 0 0 340 0 340 

Raptor nests (permanent and high 

profile structures within 1 mile) 16,820 25,680 87,900 80,610 2,870 213,880 

Active raptor nests (within 1,000 feet in 

the oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

0 20 1,020 600 0 1,640 

Active ferruginous hawk nests (within 

1,400 feet in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

0 0 0 280 0 280 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Acreage Tables 

Pinedale RMP 2-173 

Hydrocarbon Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Conventional Oil and Gas 

Very 

High High Moderate Low None 

Total 

Sage-grouse nesting habitat (within 3 

miles of leks in the oil and gas 

Traditional Leasing and Unavailable 

Areas) 

690 31,040 289,590 248,840 12,220 582,280 

Sage-grouse winter concentration 

areas (in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Unincorporated municipalities or zoned 

rural subdivisions 0 1,570 5,000 14,110 730 21,410 

White-tailed prairie dog towns greater 

than 12.5 acres in size 1,440 2,520 490 2,520 0 6,960 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 18,090 59,290 225,160 76,910 0 379,450 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4

100-year floodplains of intermittent 

channels 1,530 2,170 4,850 4,290 60 12,900 

Wetlands and riparian areas (within 

one-quarter mile) 4,590 25,410 154,480 161,050 30,570 376,100 

Class II VRM areas 1,350 14,160 138,020 348,510 40,970 543,010 

Lynx analysis units 0 11,090 89,050 63,430 37,770 201,340 

Soap Holes Basin 0 0 7,500 2,880 0 10,390 

Potential habitat for Special Status 

Plant Species ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 2,190 8,640 14,020 29,890 0 54,740 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4

Bench Corral winter OHV closure area 0 0 41,890 0 0 41,890 

Cora Stock Driveway 0 0 0 3,350 0 3,350 

Raptor nests, foraging, and roosting 

areas (within 1 mile in the oil and gas 

Traditional Leasing and Unavailable 

Areas) 

0 9,040 50,860 80,560 2,870 143,330 

Sage-grouse leks (within 1 mile in the 

oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

610 7,680 77,410 60,410 1,890 148,000 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 690 14,520 149,940 138,270 4,760 308,180 

ALTERNATIVE 4 (Proposed RMP) 

UNAVAILABLE FOR LEASING2

CCC Ponds SRMA 0 0 0 1,040 0 1,040 

Deadline-Graphite elk winter range 0 0 5,040 2,400 13,530 20.970 

Lake Mountain WSA 0 0 0 50 13,530 13,580 

New Fork Potholes ACEC 0 0 0 1,820 0 1,820 

Rock Creek ACEC 0 0 30 40 4,550 4,620 

Trapper’s Point ACEC 0 0 1,280 2,710 0 3,990 

WSR Units 0 0 0 7,300 3,340 10,640 

Oil and Gas Unavailable Area 10 940 141,070 235,040 62,410 439,470 
Chapter 2—Acreage Tables Final EIS 

2-174 Pinedale RMP 

Hydrocarbon Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Conventional Oil and Gas 

Very 

High High Moderate Low None 

Total 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 10 940 142,650 235,090 62,410 441,100 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4

100-year floodplains of perennial 

channels 110 1,520 17,500 10,460 750 30,350 

Beaver Creek ACEC (within 1,000 feet 

of streams) ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Beaver Creek ACEC (slopes of 25% or 

greater) ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Developed recreation sites (within onequarter mile) 0 0 80 1,210 430 1,720 

Elk feedgrounds 0 2,620 10,970 5,580 5,550 24,720 

Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA 130 210 1,700 3,830 0 5,870 

Lander Trail (within one-quarter mile) 0 950 6,420 7,160 0 14,530 

NSO one-half-mile buffer area 560 2,170 85,420 56,350 0 144,500 

NADP acid rain monitoring site (within 

one-half mile) 0 0 0 340 0 340 

Raptor nests (within one-quarter mile) 1,950 2,480 8,800 8,980 180 22,390 

Ryegrass NSO area ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Sage-grouse leks (within one-quarter 

mile in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

120 510 4,550 4,460 150 9,790 

Sensitive cultural sites 0 50 1,200 2,880 300 4,430 

Sublette Cutoff (within 1 mile) 0 0 3,270 5,200 0 8,470 

Unincorporated municipalities or zoned 

rural subdivisions 0 1,570 5,000 14,110 730 21,410 

Upper Green River bottleneck area 0 0 450 710 0 1,160 

West Mesa NSO area ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Active raptor nests (within 1,000 feet in 

the oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

30 480 1,940 4,040 100 6,590 

Active ferruginous hawk nests (within 

1,400 feet in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

0 60 420 2,340 0 2,820 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 900 9,500 111,300 76,670 0 198,370 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4

100-year floodplains of intermittent 

channels 1,530 2,170 4,850 4,280 60 12,890 

Beaver Creek ACEC 0 0 3,590 0 0 3,590 

Bench Corral winter OHV closure area 0 0 41,890 0 0 41,890 

Class II VRM areas 960 14,090 84,980 258,680 39,730 398,440 

Cora Stock Driveway 0 0 0 3,350 0 3,350 

Known locations of Special Status Plant 

Species 50 50 280 550 0 930 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Acreage Tables 

Pinedale RMP 2-175 

Hydrocarbon Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Conventional Oil and Gas 

Very 

High High Moderate Low None 

Total 

Lander Trail—South Piney Canyon 

area (within one-quarter mile to 1 mile) ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Lynx analysis units 0 11,090 89,050 63,430 37,770 201,340 

Miller Mountain Management Area 0 0 0 57,210 0 57,210 

Raptor nests (within 1 mile in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

800 8,560 40,360 75,810 2,700 128,230 

Soap Holes Basin 0 0 7,500 2,890 0 10,390 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 2,610 18,420 84,730 116,700 0 222,460 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4

Big game crucial winter range (in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

0 8,050 292,940 249,760 52,090 602,840 

Big game parturition range (in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

0 2,270 54,470 42,040 13,740 112,520 

Raptor nests (within 1 mile in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

800 8,560 40,360 75,810 2,700 128,230 

Active ferruginous hawk nests (within 1 

mile) 2,950 310 0 4,020 0 7,280 

Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat (in 

the oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

690 21,060 124,980 148,510 6,540 301,780 

Greater sage-grouse concentration 

areas (in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Elk feedgrounds 0 2,100 6,470 3,080 4,140 15,790 

Cora Stock Driveway 0 0 0 3,350 0 3,350 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 3,880 33,520 378,440 382,000 54,340 852,180 

1

Lease parcels are designed on aliquot parts. The actual acreage for the lease may vary. 2

Although closed to leasing and related oil and gas activity, any other surface disturbing or disrupting use would 

follow the surface disturbance prescriptions. 3

All activities would be subject to intensive mitigation, including offsite placement of facilities; remote control 

monitoring; restricted or prohibited surface use, including road construction; multiple wells from a single pad; 

central tank batteries and facilities; pipelines and power lines concentrated in specific areas; etc., based on 

site-specific analysis. 4

Refer to Appendix 3. These requirements apply to all surface disturbing activities. 5

Acres may not add because of overlap of land resources and land restrictions. 6

Habitat is protected by riparian stipulations. 

7

The Boulder Lake Archeology District is contained within the Wind River Front Management Area. 

*ND—Non-Determinable—Do not have data at this time. 
Chapter 2—Acreage Tables Final EIS 

2-176 Pinedale RMP 

Table 2-33 shows the number of acres of BLM mineral estate that is subject to leasing restrictions for 

coalbed natural gas exploration and development. The acreage values provided in the table are organized 

by the type and level of restriction and mineral potential. 

Table 2-33. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements 

by Hydrocarbon Potential (Approximate Federal Subsurface Acres) 

for Coalbed Natural Gas 

Coalbed Natural Gas Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Coalbed Natural Gas 

High Moderate Low Very 

Low None 

Total 

ALTERNATIVE 1 (Continuation of Existing Management) 

UNAVAILABLE FOR LEASING2

Deadline-Graphite elk winter range 0 0 1,160 6,270 13,530 20,960 

Lake Mountain WSA 0 0 0 50 13,440 13,490 

Scab Creek WSA 0 0 0 0 7,710 7,710 

Wind River Front MA 0 0 3,670 82,750 64,720 151,140 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 0 0 4,900 89,050 78,240 172,190 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4

100-year floodplains on perennial 

channels 960 3,160 4,800 19,500 1,860 30,280 

Sensitive cultural sites 0 0 850 620 0 1,470 

Boulder Lake Boat Ramp (within onequarter mile) 0 0 0 130 0 130 

Boulder Lake Campground (within onequarter mile) 0 0 0 490 0 490 

CCC Ponds (within one-quarter mile) 0 0 0 500 0 500 

Elk feedgrounds 1,420 1,490 630 7,080 4,840 15,460 

Fear Boat Access (within one-quarter 

mile) 0 0 180 0 0 180 

48LN300 0 0 240 620 0 860 

Huston Boat Access (within one-quarter 

mile) 0 0 0 450 0 450 

NADP acid rain monitoring site (within 

one-half mile) 0 0 0 340 0 340 

New Fork Campground (within onequarter mile) 0 0 0 470 0 470 

Rock Creek ACEC drainage area 0 0 0 70 4,550 4,620 

Scab Creek Campground (within onequarter mile) 0 0 0 0 130 130 

Stokes Crossing Campground (within 

one-quarter mile) 0 0 0 750 0 750 

Trapper’s Point (cultural site) 0 0 10 360 0 370 

48SU301 0 0 0 170 0 170 

Warren Bridge Campground (within 

one-quarter mile) 0 0 0 110 0 110 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 2,380 4,910 8,310 25,050 470 41,120 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Acreage Tables 

Pinedale RMP 2-177 

Coalbed Natural Gas Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Coalbed Natural Gas 

High Moderate Low Very 

Low None 

Total 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4

100-year floodplains of intermittent 

channels 0 520 0 9,770 170 10,460 

48SU4100 

48SU285 

Beaver Creek ACEC 770 810 60 1,950 0 3,590 

Bench Corral winter OHV closure area 0 0 0 41,890 0 41,890 

Boulder Lake Archeological District 

Boulder Lake SRMA 0 0 0 1,730 3,560 5,290 

48SU354 

Class II VRM areas 2,820 7,500 700 66,210 51,500 128,720 

Known locations of Special Status Plant 

Species 0 0 10 920 0 930 

Lander Trail (within one-quarter mile) 1,260 2,670 0 10,600 0 14,530 

Lynx analysis units 13,350 30,920 12,430 101,400 43,250 201,340 

Potential habitat for Special Status 

Plant Species ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Rock Creek ACEC (outside the 

drainage area) 0 0 0 380 230 610 

Sage-grouse leks (within one-quarter 

mile) 0 1,620 500 10,830 270 13,220 

Scab Creek SRMA (outside the WSA) 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800 

Soap Holes Basin 0 0 0 10,390 0 10,390 

Sublette Cutoff (within one-quarter mile) 0 0 2,230 0 0 2,230 

Upper Green River SRMA 0 0 0 4,800 0 4,800 

48SU4000 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 12,160 34,150 15,690 187,670 3,450 253,120 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4

Big game crucial winter range 17,290 72,650 119,070 364,290 62,190 635,490 

Big game parturition range 9,260 27,890 16,230 65,040 16,110 134,520 

Big game winter OHV closure areas 1,160 43,470 84,580 173,500 12,340 315,050 

Cora Stock Driveway (CSU) 0 0 0 3,350 0 3,350 

Raptor nests (within one-quarter mile) 490 1,630 2,230 17,860 180 22,390 

Sage-grouse nesting habitat 0 53,350 21,880 351,690 15,710 442,500 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 17,990 102,170 132,170 609,180 73,540 935,050 

ALTERNATIVE 2 

UNAVAILABLE FOR LEASING 

Lake Mountain WSA 0 0 0 50 13,440 13,490 

Scab Creek WSA 0 0 0 0 7,710 7,710 

Trapper’s Point ACEC 0 0 0 550 0 550 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 0 0 0 600 21,250 21,850 
Chapter 2—Acreage Tables Final EIS 

2-178 Pinedale RMP 

Coalbed Natural Gas Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Coalbed Natural Gas 

High Moderate Low Very 

Low None 

Total 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4

Developed recreation sites (within onequarter mile) 0 0 0 310 80 390 

Lander Trail east of Hwy 191 (onequarter mile either side of the trail) 0 0 3,540 0 0 3,540 

Lander Trail south of Piney Canyon 

(one-quarter mile either side of the trail) 0 0 820 0 0 820 

NADP acid rain monitoring site (within 

one-half mile) 0 0 0 340 0 340 

Unincorporated municipalities or zoned 

rural subdivisions 0 80 5,960 13,500 1,870 21,410 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 740 370 6,900 20,190 2,810 31,010 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4

Boulder Lake SRMA, including the Boat 

Ramp and Campground 0 0 0 4,070 0 4,070 

Class II VRM areas 2,080 1,480 690 63,350 45,830 113,440 

Known locations of Special Status Plant 

Species 0 0 10 920 0 930 

Lander Trail (within one-quarter mile) 520 2,580 0 6,990 0 10,090 

Lynx Analysis Units 12,610 30,830 11,260 98,490 21,680 174,870 

Raptor nests (within one-quarter mile) 490 1,630 2,230 17,540 0 21,890 

Scab Creek SRMA (outside the WSA) 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800 

Sublette Cutoff (within one-quarter mile) 0 0 2,230 0 0 2,230 

Upper Green SRMA (within one-quarter 

mile of the Green River) 0 0 0 6,460 11,860 18,320 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 13,360 36,020 15,500 182,520 51,690 299,070 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4

Cora Stock Driveway 0 0 0 3,350 0 3,350 

Raptor nests (within one-half mile in the 

oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

490 1,650 2,260 18,920 0 23,320 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 490 1,650 2,260 22,260 0 26,660 

ALTERNATIVE 3 

UNAVAILABLE FOR LEASING 

Beaver Creek ACEC 3,580 3,110 80 3,300 0 10,070 

Boulder Lake SRMA 0 0 0 1,730 3,560 5,290 

CCC Ponds ACEC 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 

Deadline-Graphite elk winter range 0 0 1,160 5,910 13,300 20,370 

East Fork River Unit WSR 0 0 0 0 1,090 1,090 

Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA 0 1,480 8,750 40,030 0 50,260 

Lake Mountain WSA 0 0 0 50 13,440 13,490 

Lander Trail (within 1 mile) 5,390 9,520 0 42,270 0 57,190 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Acreage Tables 

Pinedale RMP 2-179 

Coalbed Natural Gas Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Coalbed Natural Gas 

High Moderate Low Very 

Low None 

Total 

Miller Mountain Management Area 0 0 0 57,210 10 57,220 

New Fork Potholes ACEC 0 0 0 1,820 0 1,820 

Rock Creek ACEC 0 0 0 70 4,550 4,620 

Ross Butte ACEC 0 130 20 32,570 0 32,720 

Scab Creek SRMA (including the WSA) 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800 

Sensitive cultural sites 

Sublette Cutoff (within 1 mile) 0 0 8,450 0 0 8,450 

Trapper’s Point ACEC 0 0 0 9,520 0 9,520 

Upper Green River migration bottleneck 

area 0 0 0 0 1,160 1,160 

Upper Green River ACEC 0 0 0 11,410 0 11,410 

WSR Units 0 0 0 7,100 3,340 10,440 

Wind River Front Management Area 0 0 6,200 183,050 66,210 255,460 

Oil and gas Unavailable Areas 0 22,450 37,360 476,190 69,310 605,310 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 8,970 37,100 55,050 537,230 83,770 722,120 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4

100-year floodplains on perennial 

channels 960 3,160 4,800 19,500 1,860 30,280 

Beaver Creek ACEC 3,580 3,110 80 3,300 0 10,070 

Big game crucial winter range (in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

17,290 72,650 118,820 330,990 62,190 601,940 

Big game migration routes and 

bottlenecks 4,980 48,450 53,420 227,580 30,280 364,710 

Big game parturition areas (in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

9,260 24,710 16,230 65,040 16,110 131,350 

Developed recreation sites (within onehalf mile) 0 0 0 1,550 1,200 2,750 

Elk feedgrounds 4,770 8,500 4,840 33,660 15,770 67,540 

Known locations of Special Status Plant 

Species 0 0 10 920 0 930 

NADP acid rain monitoring site (within 

one-half mile) 0 0 0 340 0 340 

Raptor nests (within 1 mile) 6,950 14,170 21,400 168,480 2,870 213,870 

Active raptor nests (within 1,000 feet in 

the oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

10 500 290 840 0 1,630 

Active ferruginous hawk nests (within 

1,400 feet in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

0 0 0 280 0 280 

Sage-grouse nesting habitat (within 3 

miles of leks in the oil and gas 

Traditional Leasing and Unavailable 

Areas) 

1,930 82,860 37,980 432,590 26,130 581,490 
Chapter 2—Acreage Tables Final EIS 

2-180 Pinedale RMP 

Coalbed Natural Gas Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Coalbed Natural Gas 

High Moderate Low Very 

Low None 

Total 

Sage-grouse winter concentration areas 

(in the oil and gas Traditional Leasing 

and Unavailable Areas) 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Unincorporated municipalities or zoned 

rural subdivisions 0 80 5,960 13,500 1,870 21,410 

White-tailed prairie dog towns greater 

than 12.5 acres in size 0 0 0 13,480 0 13,480 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 10,190 74,380 100,860 193,110 350 378,890 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4

100-year floodplains of intermittent 

channels 0 520 2,350 9,770 170 12,810 

Wetlands and riparian areas (within 

one-quarter mile) 8,410 44,860 54,640 224,890 43,040 375,840 

Class II VRM areas 17,350 38,140 35,860 389,950 60,480 541,780 

Lynx analysis units 13,350 30,920 12,430 101,400 43,250 201,340 

Soap Holes Basin 0 0 0 10,390 0 10,390 

Potential habitat for Special Status 

Plant Species 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 10 5,110 11,560 37,520 510 54,710 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4

Bench Corral winter OHV closure area 0 0 0 41,890 0 41,890 

Cora Stock Driveway 0 0 0 3,350 0 3,350 

Raptor nests, foraging and roosting 

areas (within 1 mile in the oil and gas 

Traditional Leasing and Unavailable 

Areas) 

6,950 10,300 1,690 121,940 2,870 143,750 

Sage-grouse leks (within 1 mile in the 

oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

0 19,710 7,080 116,740 4,430 147,960 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 6,950 28,940 8,830 256,120 7,300 308,140 

ALTERNATIVE 4 (Proposed RMP) 

UNAVAILABLE FOR OIL AND GAS LEASING2

CCC Ponds SRMA 0 0 0 1,040 0 1,040 

Deadline-Graphite elk winter range 0 0 1,220 6,630 13,530 21,380 

Lake Mountain WSA 0 0 0 50 13,530 13,580 

New Fork Potholes ACEC 0 0 0 1,820 0 1,820 

Rock Creek ACEC 0 0 30 40 4,550 4,620 

Trapper’s Point ACEC 0 0 0 3,990 0 3,990 

WSR Units 0 0 0 7,290 3,340 10,630 

Oil and Gas Unavailable Area 0 13,010 980 343,310 81,620 438,920 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 0 13,010 1,680 334,250 81,620 430,560 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Acreage Tables 

Pinedale RMP 2-181 

Coalbed Natural Gas Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Coalbed Natural Gas 

High Moderate Low Very 

Low None 

Total 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4

100-year floodplains of perennial 

channels 960 3,160 4,800 19,500 1,860 30,280 

Beaver Creek ACEC (within 1,000 feet 

of streams) ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Beaver Creek ACEC (slopes of 25% or 

more) ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Developed recreation sites (within onequarter mile) 0 100 100 1,040 820 2,060 

Elk feedgrounds 2,280 2,910 2,040 11.090 6,390 24,710 

Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA 0 140 1,280 4,400 0 5,820 

Lander Trail (within one-quarter mile) 1,260 2,670 0 10,600 0 14,530 

NSO one-half-mile buffer area 0 15,320 8,800 117,170 3,210 144,500 

NADP acid rain monitoring site (within 

one-half mile) 0 0 0 340 0 340 

Raptor nests (within one-quarter mile) 490 1,630 2,230 17,860 180 22,390 

Ross Butte MA 0 130 20 32,570 0 32,720 

Ryegrass NSO area ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Sage-grouse leks (within one-quarter 

mile in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

0 1,020 0 8,480 270 9,770 

Sensitive cultural sites 0 200 850 2,610 770 4,430 

Sublette Cutoff (within 1 mile) 0 0 0 8,450 0 8,450 

Unincorporated municipalities or zoned 

rural subdivisions 0 80 5,900 13,500 1,870 21,410 

Upper Green River bottleneck area 0 0 0 0 1,160 1,160 

West Mesa NSO area ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Active raptor nests (within 1,000 feet in 

the oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

30 640 60 5,760 100 6,590 

Active ferruginous hawk nests (within 

1,400 feet in the oil and gas Traditional 

Leasing and Unavailable Areas) 

0 0 0 2,820 0 2,820 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 3,920 23,570 30,520 136,940 3,210 198,160 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4

100-year floodplains of intermittent 

channels 0 520 2,350 9,770 170 12,810 

Beaver Creek ACEC 770 810 60 1,950 0 3,590 

Bench Corral winter OHV closure area 0 0 0 41,890 0 41,890 

Class II VRM areas 17,150 26,900 58,090 235,460 59,760 397,360 

Cora Stock Driveway 0 0 0 3,350 0 3,350 

Known locations of Special Status Plant 

Species 0 0 10 920 0 930 
Chapter 2—Acreage Tables Final EIS 

2-182 Pinedale RMP 

Coalbed Natural Gas Potential 

(Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area—Coalbed Natural Gas 

High Moderate Low Very 

Low None 

Total 

Lander Trail—South Piney Canyon area 

(within one-quarter mile to 1 mile) ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Lynx analysis units 13,350 30,920 12,430 101,400 43,250 201,340 

Miller Mountain Management Area 0 0 0 57,210 10 57,220 

Raptor nests (within 1 mile in the oil and 

gas Traditional Lease and Unavailable 

Areas) 

1,670 9,600 1,750 112,410 2,700 128,130 

Soap Holes Basin 0 0 0 10,390 0 10,390 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 14,790 18,570 39,500 149,200 0 222,060 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4

Big game crucial winter range (in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

17,290 72,650 118,820 330,990 62,190 601,940 

Big game parturition range (in the oil 

and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

9,260 17,800 11,990 58,360 15,100 112,510 

Raptor nests (within 1 mile in the oil and 

gas Traditional Leasing and Unavailable 

Areas) 

1,670 9,700 1,750 112,410 2,700 128,230 

Active ferruginous hawk nests (within 1 

mile) 0 0 0 7,270 0 7,270 

Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat (in 

the oil and gas Traditional Leasing and 

Unavailable Areas) 

0 31,160 3,790 251,240 15,390 301,580 

Greater sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas (in the oil and gas 

Traditional Leasing and Unavailable 

Areas) 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Elk feedgrounds 1,420 1,490 630 7,420 4,840 15,800 

Cora Stock Driveway 0 0 0 3,350 0 3,350 

Total Affected Area (in acres)5 18,470 91,360 127,720 544,240 69,370 851,160 

1

Lease parcels are designed on aliquot parts. The actual acreage for the lease may vary. 2

Although closed to leasing and related oil and gas activity, any other surface disturbing or disrupting use would follow the 

surface disturbance prescriptions. 

3

All activities would be subject to intensive mitigation, including offsite placement of facilities; remote control monitoring; restricted 

or prohibited surface use, including road construction; multiple wells from a single pad; central tank batteries and facilities; 

pipelines and power lines concentrated in specific areas; etc., based on site-specific analysis. 4

Refer to Appendix 3. These requirements apply to all surface disturbing activities. 5

Acres may not add because of overlap of land resources and land restrictions. 6

Habitat is protected by riparian stipulations. 7

The Boulder Lake Archeology District is contained within the Wind River Front Management Area. 

*ND—Non-Determinable—Do not have data at this time. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Pinedale RMP 2-183 

Table 2-34. Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

IMPACTS ON AIR RESOURCES 

NOx emissions could increase by 7,483 

tons per year in 2011. NOx emissions could increase by 15,780 tons per year in 2021. 

NOx emissions could increase by 

8,461 tons per year in 2011. NOx emissions could increase by 17,306 tons per year in 2021. 

NOx emissions could increase by 

4,876 tons per year in 2011. NOx emissions could increase by 11,133 tons per year in 2021. 

NOx emissions could increase by 

7,338 tons per year in 2011. NOx emissions could increase by 

15,426 tons per year in 2021. 

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Disturbance of more than 43,000 acres through oil and gas activities and unlimited OHV use in the Desert General Use area would cause potential damage to undiscovered or undocumented sites. 

An increase in the disturbed area for oil and gas activities and reduced protections for historic trails and other sites would result in greater impacts than under Alternative 1. Restriction of the Desert General Use Area to existing roads and trails would reduce impacts from direct physical damage and unauthorized collecting in this area. 

A decrease in the disturbed area for oil and gas and other activities and generally more restrictive protections for cultural sites and historic trails would result in fewer impacts on sites. Impacts of OHV use would also be reduced. This alternative would provide the most protection for cultural sites. 

This alternative would provide more protection to cultural sites than Alternative 1, but less than Alternative 3. The area disturbed for oil and gas development, the protections for cultural sites, and the restrictions on OHV use would all fall between Alternatives 1 and 3. 

IMPACTS ON FORESTRY 

Fire suppression activities could impact forest resources by contributing to the build-up of fuels, which would increase the potential for fire to destroy these resources. However, fuel reduction projects, as well as some commercial harvesting, could reduce this potential impact by reducing the intensity of wildland fires and making wildland fire easier to control. 

More commercial timber would be harvested and forest health actions would be directed toward sustaining a greater yield of forest products. In addition, aspen stands would be managed for early seral aspen communities to maximize commodity benefits, thus having a greater impact on the management of aspen as a commodity compared to the other alternatives. Old growth stands would be identified and preserved. 

Increased treatment of woodlands and forest management to meet forest health standards would result in a greater range of variability in stands. Old growth stands would be identified and preserved. 

Same as Alternative 3. 
Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS 

2-184 Pinedale RMP 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

IMPACTS ON LANDS AND REALTY 

Impacts on lands and realty management could result in rerouting of ROWs and restricting land tenure adjustments for the protection of sensitive resources on BLM administered lands. 

Overall impacts would include increased opportunity for ROW authorizations and tenure adjustments resulting from reduced land use restrictions. 

Impacts on lands and realty management would indirectly result from the potential decrease in opportunities for development and ROW authorizations. Furthermore, nearly 40% of the entire planning area would be withdrawn from all disposal actions. 

Impacts would be anticipated from the implementation of management actions designed to protect natural resources and limit impacts on these resources from surface disturbing activities. Impacts would often be localized and would primarily include relocation and redesign of ROWs but could also affect land tenure adjustments. 

IMPACTS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Current grazing levels (107,907 AUMs) would be maintained. Unallocated parcels (20,991 AUMs) would be available for livestock grazing. About 51 AUMs in any one year, or a total of 153 AUMs at any one time, could be temporarily lost to pipeline construction and other ROW developments. 

Grazing would be increased to 157,308 AUMs. Unallocated parcels (20,991 AUMs) would be available for livestock grazing. Long-term vegetation disturbance would occur on 7,434 acres (870 AUMs) of the planning area. 

Grazing would be reduced to about 84,000 AUMs. Unallocated parcels (20,991 AUMs) would not be available for livestock grazing. 

Current grazing levels (107,907 AUMs) would be maintained. Unallocated parcels (20,991 AUMs) would be available for livestock grazing. 

IMPACTS ON MINERALS 

Leasable Minerals 

This alternative would be the second least restrictive to oil and gas exploration and development activities. The 7,192 wells projected under this alternative would potentially extract 19,104 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas and 157 million barrels of oil over the life of the plan. Approximately 172,500 acres would be unavailable for fluid mineral leasing, exploration, development, or production. 

This alternative would be the least restrictive to oil and gas exploration and development activities. The 7,804 wells projected under this alternative would potentially extract 20,052 BCF of natural gas and 157 million barrels of oil over the life of the plan. Approximately 21,850 acres would be unavailable for fluid mineral leasing, exploration, development, or production. 

This alternative would be the most restrictive to oil and gas exploration and development activities. The 5,209 wells projected under this alternative would potentially extract 16,730 BCF of natural gas and 130 million barrels of oil over the life of the plan. Approximately 723,200 acres would be unavailable for fluid mineral leasing, exploration, development, or production. 

This alternative would be the second most restrictive to oil and gas exploration and development activities. The 7,136 wells projected under this alternative would potentially extract 19,168 BCF of natural gas and 150 million barrels of oil over the life of the plan. Approximately 441,100 acres would be unavailable for fluid mineral leasing, exploration, development, or production. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Pinedale RMP 2-185 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

Locatable Minerals 

Approximately 14,540 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry. Approximately 8,860 acres would be designated as ACECs, which could encumber, but not prohibit, access to development. 

Under Alternative 2, no areas would be withdrawn from mineral entry. Approximately 550 acres would be designated as an ACEC, which could encumber, but not prohibit access to development. 

Approximately 65,750 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry, the most restrictive of any alternative. Approximately 80,260 acres would be designated as ACECs, which could encumber, but not prohibit, access to development. 

Approximately 13,770 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry. Approximately 14,530 acres would be designated as ACECs, which could encumber, but not prohibit, access to development. 

Salable Minerals 

Designation of 21,290 acres of VRM Class I and 73,430 acres of Class II could decrease salable mineral production. 

Acres classified as VRM Class I and Class II would be reduced under this alternative (to 87,150 total acres), which could increase salable mineral production compared with Alternative 1. Fewer restrictions on oil and gas development would likely result in a higher demand for mineral materials. 

Alternative 3 would be the most restrictive for development. Approximately 21,290 acres would be classified as VRM Class I and 393,260 acres as Class II. 

Alternative 4 would generally be more restrictive than Alternatives 1 and 2, and less restrictive than Alternative 3. Approximately 21,290 acres would be classified as VRM Class I and 256,320 acres would be Class II. 

IMPACTS ON PALEONTOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY 

Disturbance of more than 43,000 acres through oil and gas activities and unlimited OHV use in the Desert General Use area would cause potential damage to undiscovered or undocumented sites. 

An increase in the disturbed area for oil and gas activities would result in greater impacts than under Alternative 1. Restriction of the Desert General Use Area to existing roads and trails would somewhat reduce impacts from direct physical damage and unauthorized collecting. 

A decrease in the disturbed area for oil and gas and other activities would result in fewer impacts on sites. Impacts of OHV use would also be reduced. This alternative would provide the most protection for paleontological sites. 

This alternative would provide more protection for paleontological sites than Alternative 1, but less than Alternative 3. The area disturbed for oil and gas development and the restrictions on OHV use would fall between Alternatives 1 and 3. 

IMPACTS ON RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

Indirect long-term major adverse impacts on recreation activities and opportunities would likely occur because of increased loss of wildlife habitat and other recreation resources. Impacts on wildlife, and the recreation setting would create a long-term reduction in recreation benefits. This 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1 except adverse impacts would be greatest across the planning area. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1 except adverse impacts would be considerably less across the planning area, and important recreational settings would be protected. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1 except adverse impacts would be less across the management area, and important recreation settings would generally be protected. SRMAs would be managed to produce long-term significant public benefits. 
Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS 

2-186 Pinedale RMP 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

impact would be most evident within the Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). 

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMICS 

Economic Impacts 

Continued management actions within the planning area would be expected to perpetuate trends that are already occurring within the economic study area. This includes support of jobs and income in the regional economy associated with oil and gas development, grazing, and recreation. The economic impacts in terms of average annual employment were estimated for oil and gas development (10,250 jobs), grazing (77 jobs), and recreation (87 jobs). Similarly, the average annual earnings per job, in 2005 dollars, were estimated for oil and gas development ($54,616), grazing ($33,395), and recreation ($14,233). Total mineral tax revenues from ad valorem tax, severance tax, and federal royalties in the economic study area over the 20-year study period were estimated at more than $11.730 billion in 2005 dollars. 

Oil and gas development and grazing are expected to be greatest under Alternative 2, generating additional oil and gas development- and grazing-related jobs. Such increases would be 721 and 35 jobs, respectively. There would be a loss of six jobs supporting recreation activities compared with Alternative 1. There would be an increase in revenue from mineral taxes of $464.7 million compared with Alternative 1. The average annual earnings per job are assumed to be the same. 

Alternative 3 would allow the least amount of oil and gas development and grazing, generating less oil and gas development- and grazing-related jobs. Such decreases would be 2,282 and 17 jobs, respectively. There would be an increase of 11 jobs supporting recreation activities compared with Alternative 1. Also, there would be $2.3 billion less revenue received from mineral taxes compared with Alternative 1. The average annual earnings per job are assumed to be the same. 

The pace of oil and gas development and expected grazing activity would be similar to Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, 65 fewer oil and gasrelated jobs would be generated, while grazing employment would remain the same as Alternative 1. In addition, there would be four more jobs supporting recreation activities compared with Alternative 1. There would be a slight increase of $27.6 million from mineral taxes compared with Alternative 1. The average annual earnings per job are assumed to be the same. 

Social Impacts 

Increased oil and gas development would be expected to continue to contribute to social impacts on housing, crime, education, emergency response, and some community services in various ways throughout the study area. For example, oil and gas development would contribute to housing shortages and increased crime rates, traffic, and demand for community services. 

With the greatest amount of oil and gas development expected under this alternative, it is likely that the need for emergency response and community services would be greatest under this alternative. Increased development is expected to exacerbate existing trends in some areas of the economic study 

With the least amount of oil and gas development expected under this alternative, it is likely that the need for housing, education, emergency response, and community services would increase at a slower rate compared with Alternative 1. Decreases in future mineral taxes from oil and gas production could 

Continued development of oil and gas resources would be expected to contribute to social impacts associated with housing, crime, education, emergency response, and community services, similar to Alternative 1. For example, oil and gas development would contribute to housing shortages and increased crime rates, traffic, and demand for 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Pinedale RMP 2-187 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

Existing conflicts between conservationminded individuals and groups and the pro-development community would be expected to continue. Environmental justice impacts would not be expected.

area, including housing shortages and increased crime rates, traffic, and demands on community services compared with Alternative 1. It is expected that there would be a decline in the quality of life for some conservation-oriented lifestyles. Environmental justice impacts would not be expected.

have an impact on government services. Existing conflicts between conservation-minded individuals and groups and the pro-development community would be expected to continue, although to a lesser degree. Environmental justice impacts would not be expected.

community services. Existing conflicts between conservation-minded individuals and groups and the prodevelopment community would be expected to continue. Environmental justice impacts would not be expected.

IMPACTS ON SOILS 

Soil resources would be impacted by management actions that remove vegetation and expose the surface to accelerated wind and water erosion. Management of other resources and resource uses such as cultural resources, forest and woodlands, livestock grazing, and recreation would have a minimal impact on erosion. Surface disturbing activities associated with minerals activities would expose soils to wind and water erosion in the short term and long term. The initial disturbance of 21,599 acres for well pad development would result in 132,402 tons per year of soil erosion in the short term. Once these sites are stabilized, erosion rates would drop to 64,212 tons per year. Allowing open to unrestricted OHV use on 247,250 acres could result in accelerated erosion. In the unlikely event that the entire 247,250 acres were used as an OHV open area, erosion rates could be up to 101,373 tons per year. The widespread nature of this impact could significantly impact soil resources. 

Management of other resources and resource uses such as cultural resources, forest and woodlands, livestock grazing, and recreation would have a minimal impact on erosion. Surface disturbing activities associated with minerals activities would expose soils to wind and water erosion in the short term and long term. Maximizing mineral development, primarily oil and gas activity, would increase associated annual erosion rates approximately 10% compared with Alternative 1. The initial disturbance of 23,872 acres for well pad development would result in 146,335 tons per year of soil erosion in the short term. Once these sites are stabilized, erosion rates would be reduced to 68,993 tons per year. The designation of 10,460 acres for two OHV open areas would result in the erosion of 4,289 tons per year of soil, resulting in a 95% decrease in the potential erosion 

The increased emphasis on protection of natural resources would minimize erosion from surface disturbing activities. Management of other resources and resource uses such as cultural resources, forest and woodlands, livestock grazing, and recreation would have a minimal impact on erosion. The level of mineral development, primarily oil and gas activity, would decrease associated annual erosion rates by 26% compared with Alternative 1. The initial disturbance of 15,923 acres for well pad development would result in 97,608 tons per year of soil erosion in the short term. Once these sites are stabilized, erosion rates would be reduced to 49,193 tons per year. Not allowing OHV open areas would reduce or eliminate erosion caused by OHV activity. In the long term, these areas would revegetate, and erosion rates would approach more natural 

Management of other resources and resource uses such as cultural resources, forest and woodlands, livestock grazing, and recreation would have a minimal impact on erosion. Emphasizing appropriate environmental protection would allow for development while protecting natural resources, including soil resources, from surface disturbing activities. The level of mineral development, primarily oil and gas activity, would slightly decrease associated annual erosion rates by 1% compared with Alternative 1. The initial disturbance of 21,853 acres for well pad development would result in 133,959 tons per year of soil erosion in the short term. Once these sites are stabilized, erosion rates would be reduced to 63,997 tons per year. Not allowing OHV open areas would reduce or eliminate erosion caused by OHV activity. In the long term, these areas would revegetate, and erosion rates would approach more natural 
Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS 

2-188 Pinedale RMP 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

rate for Alternative 1. levels. levels. 

IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION, ACCESS, AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

Impacts on Transportation and Access 

Management of VRM, fish and wildlife, Special Status Species, and ACECs would affect the design and location of transportation systems. These management actions could result in rerouting transportation systems. 

Management of cultural resources, VRM, fish and wildlife, and SD/MAs would be more restrictive on the transportation program compared with Alternative 1. Management actions for these resource programs would further restrict the design and location of transportation systems. 

Management of cultural resources, VRM, fish and wildlife, and SD/MAs would be more restrictive on the transportation program compared with Alternatives 1 and 2. Management for these resource programs would further restrict the design and location of transportation systems. 

Management of cultural resources, VRM, fish and wildlife, and SD/MAs would be more restrictive on the transportation program compared with Alternatives 1 and 2, but less restrictive than Alternative 3. Management actions for these resource programs would restrict the design and location of transportation systems. 

Impacts on Off-Highway Vehicle Management 

This alternative would be the least restrictive to OHV use. Approximately 247,250 acres of the planning area would be open to OHV use. Approximately 13,620 acres would be closed to OHV use. 

The vast majority of the planning area would be limited to existing roads and trails (874,870 acres). Open areas would be reduced to include 20,640 acres, and closed areas would be reduced to include 8,400 acres. 

This alternative would eliminate all open areas and increase closed areas to 30,350 acres. Management actions under this alternative would be the most restrictive to OHV use. 

This alternative would eliminate all open areas and increase closed areas to 26,320 acres. 

IMPACTS ON VEGETATION 

Impacts would result from mineral development and the associated roads, pipelines, and facilities throughout the planning area. Removal of sagebrush would increase habitat loss and fragmentation of native plant communities. 

Under Alternative 2, there would be an increased loss of native sagebrush habitat compared with Alternative 1. Increased surface disturbance from more oil and gas drilling and its associated infrastructure would cause some long-term localized impacts. 

Impacts on native vegetation from Alternative 3 would be less than under Alternative 1. Native plant communities would have the greatest protection from surface disturbance, and sagebrush habitats would recover and increase in cover, density, and function compared with the other alternatives. 

Impacts from surface disturbance would be less than under Alternatives 1 and 2. Surface disturbance would be more than under Alternative 3, but with protection of sensitive areas, utilization of BMPs, and vegetation management, the impacts would be minimized. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Pinedale RMP 2-189 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

IMPACTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES 

Nearly 90% of the planning area would be in VRM Classes III and IV, allowing visual impacts that would change the character of the landscape and be readily apparent or dominate the view of the casual observer. 

Approximately 91% of the planning area would be in VRM Classes III and IV, with a larger proportion in Class IV compared with Alternative 1. There would be no VRM Class I areas. 

Approximately 58% of the planning area would be in VRM Classes III and IV, 40% in Class II, and 2% in VRM Class I. 

Approximately 72% of the planning area would be in VRM Classes III and IV, 26% in Class II, and 2% in VRM Class I. 

IMPACTS ON WATERSHED AND WATER QUALITY 

This alternative has the second highest potential for impacts on watershed health and water quality. Development of 7,192 federal oil and gas wells would create 43,000 acres of initial surface disturbance, which would impact water resources by increasing soil erosion, surface runoff, stream flows, and sediment, salt, and nutrient loads to nearby channels. Allowing cross-country OHV use and not designating roads and trails for OHV use would increase the potential for unregulated OHV travel. The disturbance caused by this activity could affect landscape features that, in turn, could affect watershed quality. Surface discharge of produced water would augment flows and could accelerate erosion in stream channels. This could increase salinity and sedimentation. 

This alternative would result in the greatest impacts on water resources from mineral development. The amount of surface disturbance (46,749 acres) and the number of wells that would be drilled (7,804) would be greater than other alternatives. Roads and trails would be designated, and OHV open areas would be redefined to more discrete areas, resulting in fewer disturbances from OHV use than under Alternative 1. Increased disturbance to water bodies and riparian areas from grazing activities would occur. Surface discharge of produced waters would be more restrictive than under Alternative 1. This would reduce impacts such as salinity and sedimentation. 

This alternative would result in the lowest level of impacts on water resources. The amount of surface disturbance (31,139 acres) and the number of wells that would be drilled (5,209) would be less than the other alternatives. Cross-country OHV use would be prohibited, and roads and trails would be designated for OHV use, which would reduce the effects to water resources. Decreased disturbance to water bodies and riparian areas from grazing activities would occur. Surface discharge of produced waters would not be allowed. 

Oil and gas development (7,136 wells) would result in less surface disturbance (42,180 acres) compared with Alternatives 1 and 2. Less surface disturbance would result in fewer impacts on water resources. Cross-country OHV use would be prohibited and roads and trails would be designated for OHV use, which would reduce the effects to water resources. Decreased disturbance to water bodies and riparian areas from grazing activities would occur. Surface discharge of produced waters would not be allowed. Produced water would meet WDEQ standards for discharge and follow BLM BMPs (Appendix 3). The limited use of produced water could improve reclamation success 

IMPACTS ON WILDLAND FIRE AND FUELS 

Management actions designed to reduce the amount of vegetative fuel within the planning area would aid in fire suppression efforts. However, continued fire suppression in most areas would increase the amount of fuel within the planning area, having a significant impact on the ability to 

Managing fire for the appropriate response and using wildland fire for resource benefit would have a greater impact on fire management compared with Alternative 1, which focuses on suppression. Additional management actions 

In addition to the impacts that would occur under Alternative 2, reinstating fire to its natural role in the ecosystem would have a greater impact on the fire program by limiting suppression activities and increasing the use of fire throughout the planning area. The 

In addition to the impacts that would occur under Alternative 3, additional restrictions on the use of surface explosives would reduce the risk of wildfire in specific areas. This alternative would have the greatest impact on fire and fuels as compared to the other alternatives. 
Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS 

2-190 Pinedale RMP 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

suppress and manage wildland fires. This alternative would have the least impact to the fire program. 

for fuels management under this alternative would also increase impacts on the fire program by reducing the amount of fine fuels through prescribed fire and other methods. 

establishment of reserve common allotments, which would not be included in Alternatives 1 and 2, would facilitate prescribed burns in areas that would otherwise be difficult to conduct. 

IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND FISH HABITAT 

Impacts would result from mineral development throughout the planning area, particularly from the removal of wildlife sensitive habitats. Estimated initial surface disturbance for Alternative 1 is 43,022 acres. Minerals development would continue to impact wildlife and fish through loss, alteration, and fragmentation of habitats and displacement of wildlife. An increased number or roads, pipelines, and infrastructure for surface water disposal would increase habitat loss, fragmentation, and changes in surface hydrology. Vegetation treatments would not be adequate to achieve wildlife habitat goals and could be detrimental in some cases. The combined impacts from these actions would lead to significant impacts in localized areas. Additional impacts could result from livestock management, OHV activities, vegetation management, road crossings, impoundments, and instream structures. 

Under Alternative 2, more surface disturbance is estimated to occur. The estimated initial surface disturbance is 46,739 acres. Impacts would result from yearlong drilling in the Intensively Developed Fields. Minerals development would continue to impact wildlife and fish through loss, alteration, and fragmentation of habitats and displacement of wildlife. An increased number of roads, pipelines, and infrastructure for surface water disposal would increase habitat loss, fragmentation, and changes in surface hydrology. The combined impacts from these actions would lead to significant impacts in localized areas and would be more likely under this alternative. Additional impacts would result from livestock management, OHV activities, SD/MA, vegetation management, road crossings, impoundments, and instream structures. 

Alternative 3 provides the greatest detail and protection mechanisms of all the alternatives by incorporating the most up-to-date research conducted within the planning area. If these strategies were thoughtfully planned and implemented, they could provide the greatest success in maintaining and improving habitat quality and function, as well as species diversity within the planning area. The estimated initial surface disturbance is 31,139 acres.

Mitigation measures and BMPs designed to reduce surface disturbing and other disruptive activities in sensitive habitats during critical times of the year would be used to minimize impacts. The estimated initial surface disturbance is 42,180 acres. Vegetation management in wetland/riparian areas to meet DPC would result in significant, long-term benefits to wildlife. Additional impacts would result from livestock management, minerals management, and OHV activities, and increased numbers of SD/MAs would benefit wildlife. In addition, fire and fuels management would displace wildlife but could improve forest health to maintain diversity. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Pinedale RMP 2-191 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

IMPACTS ON SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Rock Creek 

Managing the ACEC as a ROW avoidance area, deferring mineral leasing, and implementing seasonal road closures would ensure long-term reductions in sediment loading and enhancement of ACEC values. 

Elimination of the Rock Creek ACEC designation would lead to OHV impacts on roads, particularly in the Rock Creek drainage, potentially leading to reduction of the CRCT population. 

Closure of the ACEC to ROWs, livestock grazing, mineral location and leasing, geophysical exploration, and OHV use would provide the greatest level of protection of ACEC values among the alternatives. 

Impacts would be slightly reduced from Alternative 1 because the watershed area would be closed to mineral leasing and location and geophysical exploration. 

Beaver Creek 

Impacts of oil and gas development would be controlled through use of management prescriptions on surface disturbing activities, use of explosives, water diversions, and locatable mineral withdrawal. 

Elimination of the Beaver Creek ACEC designation would lead to increases in road construction, human presence and disturbance during elk parturition, and increased sedimentation in Beaver Creek and possible reduction in CRCT populations. 

Expansion of the Beaver Creek ACEC to approximately 10,160 acres and an increase in restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities would lead to reductions in human presence, disturbance, and habitat fragmentation over a larger area. This alternative would provide the greatest level of protection to ACEC values. 

Impacts would be substantially similar to Alternative 1. 

Trapper’s Point 

Mineral development in the area would lead to degradation or elimination of the big game migration through this bottleneck area. Impacts on sensitive Native American sites would also increase. This alternative would provide no substantial protection of the Trapper’s Point area. 

ACEC designation (550 acres) and closing of the area to mineral leasing would protect the viability of the big game migration bottleneck and provide protection for cultural sites. 

ACEC designation (9,540 acres) would protect staging and feeding areas for big game as they approach the bottleneck and provide increased protection for cultural sites. This alternative would provide the greatest amount of protection for the Trapper’s Point area. 

ACEC designation (4,160 acres) would protect staging and feeding areas for big game as they approach the bottleneck and provide protection for cultural sites. 

Impacts would occur from the loss of forage for wildlife and livestock, disruption of the Green River Drift stock driveway, vegetation loss, and soil erosion. 

Not allowing the construction of new fences and other surface disturbing activities and limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails would protect the viability of the big game migration bottleneck. 

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2. 
Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS 

2-192 Pinedale RMP 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

New Fork Potholes 

Mineral development and geophysical operations would potentially result in accelerated erosion and sedimentation into the potholes and cause a loss of wildlife habitat. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. Making the area available for leasing with a CSU stipulation could reduce impacts on surface resource values. 

Establishing the New Fork Potholes ACEC would provide the greatest protection for the sensitive resources in the area. Restrictions on development would provide protection to pristine pothole habitat, scenic values, vegetation health, and the hydrologic regime of the potholes. Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails and implementing seasonal OHV restrictions would decrease impacts on vegetation and erosion, and decrease stress to wildlife. 

Same as Alternative 3. 

Upper Green River 

The Upper Green River SRMA (5,160 acres) would be designated. Allowing mineral leasing with CSU stipulations would impact the visual and recreational values in the SRMA if development of mineral leases occurred. 

Same as Alternative 1. Designation of the Upper Green 

River ACEC (12,270 acres) would provide the greatest protection to the area. Closure to oil and gas leasing and withdrawal from mineral location would reduce human presence and disturbance of wildlife, including during sensitive migration periods. 

The Upper Green River SRMA would be enlarged to 7,180 acres. Most impacts would be similar to Alternative 3. The area would be available for mineral location, although the potential for a mineral discovery is small. 

The anticipated increase in recreational use of the SRMA would benefit from upgrading facilities. However, recreational and visual qualities in the SRMA would be impacted from increased OHV use. 

Same as Alternative 1. A slight reduction would occur in 

motorized recreation opportunities from limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails. 

Same as Alternative 3. 

White-Tailed Prairie Dog 

Impacts on prairie dogs would occur from habitat loss, degradation, displacement, and mortality from linear features and facilities. 

Impacts from these causes would increase as a result of increased mineral development, particularly gas field development. 

Impacts would be reduced because the ACEC would be closed to locatable mineral entry, sale, and mineral material disposals. Furthermore, land tenure adjustments would be 

The area would not be designated as an ACEC. However, impacts would be reduced from Alternative 1 because of acquisition of habitats from willing partners and restrictions on surface disturbing activities within prairie dog 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Pinedale RMP 2-193 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

pursued to meet ACEC objectives. This alternative would provide the greatest level of protection for WTPD habitats. 

towns. This alternative would be adequate to protect prairie dog habitats. 

Permitted above-ground facilities near prairie dogs complexes could contribute to increased predation by raptors by creating artificial raptor nesting sites. 

Impact magnitude from these facilities would increase because increased numbers of aboveground facilities would increase predation on prairie dogs. 

Impact magnitude would decrease because of decreased aboveground facilities, prohibitions on surface disturbance in prairie dog towns, and requirements for raptor-inhibiting devices on aboveground facilities within one-quarter mile of prairie dog towns. 

Impact magnitude would decrease because of restrictions on surface disturbing activities within prairie dog towns and requirements for raptorinhibiting devices on above-ground facilities within one-quarter mile of prairie dog towns. 

OHV use and recreational shooting of prairie dogs, particularly in the Desert OHV open area, would impact prairie dogs and their habitat. 

Impacts from OHV would decrease as a result of limiting OHVs to existing roads and trails, which could also reduce the level of recreational shooting of prairie dogs. 

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails in sensitive prairie dog habitats would reduce impacts. This limitation could also reduce recreational shooting of prairie dogs. 

Impacts from OHV use (and associated recreational shooting) would be slightly higher than those described in Alternative 3 because the area would not be a high priority for travel planning and road designations. 

Miller Mountain 

Commercial timber harvest, mineral location and development, OHV activity, and allowing increases in road density and surface disturbance would potentially increase soil erosion and degrade wildlife habitat, opportunity for open space, and the visual qualities of the area. 

Same as Alternative 1. Establishing the Miller Mountain 

Management Area and prohibiting commercial timber harvest, closing the area to the operation of public land laws, limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails, and limiting surface disturbance would provide the greatest level of protection to open space and natural landscape values and crucial winter ranges. 

Similar to Alternative 3. Impacts would be somewhat higher because timber harvest, oil and gas leasing, and locatable mineral development could occur. 
Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS 

2-194 Pinedale RMP 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

Ross Butte 

Mineral development and geophysical operations would potentially result in accelerated erosion and loss of sensitive plant species habitat. 

Same as Alternative 1. Establishing the Ross Butte ACEC 

and closing the area to the operation of public land laws, implementing NSO and CSU stipulations, limiting surface disturbance, and limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails would help protect the area from erosion and adverse impacts on sensitive plant species. 

Establishing the Ross Butte Management Area would result in impacts generally similar to Alternative 3. 

CCC Ponds 

Surface disturbing activities would impact recreation resources by increasing disturbance and visual intrusions. Requiring CSU stipulations within one-quarter mile of the CCC Ponds and prohibiting motorized vehicle use on the Pinedale Pathway would help reduce impacts. 

Designation of the area as a SRMA and implementing NSO stipulations throughout the SRMA would protect recreation resources. Impacts related to OHV use on existing roads and trails and allowing motorized vehicle use on the Pinedale Pathway would still occur from increased user conflicts and associated resource damage. 

Designation of the CCC Ponds ACEC, closing the area to oil and gas development, and expansion of the area would reduce impacts on recreation resources. Prohibiting over-the-snow vehicles in certain areas would further reduce impacts on recreation resources in the area. 

The CCC Ponds SRMA under this alternative would provide the greatest protection to recreation resources in the area by limiting all OHV use to designated roads and trails, closing the area to oil and gas development, and allowing existing leases to expire. 

Oil and gas development in the area would degrade mule deer migration routes, which would impact associated recreation opportunities in the area. 

NSO restrictions on oil and gas development would protect the integrity of the mule deer migration route, thus reducing impacts on associated recreation opportunities. 

Closure of the area to oil and gas leasing and development would provide the greatest protection for the mule deer migration route, thus preserving associated recreational opportunities. 

Same as Alternative 3. 
Final EIS Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Pinedale RMP 2-195 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

Wind River Front 

A large portion of the area would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing, preventing fragmentation of wildlife transitional ranges and impacts on the recreational experience and scenic quality of the area. Allowing commercial timber harvest would impact the area by increasing soil erosion, reducing opportunity for open space and degrading wildlife habitat and the visual qualities of the area. 

There would be no special protections for the Wind River Front area. Impacts on wildlife habitats, scenic quality, and recreation opportunities could occur. 

This alternative would provide the greatest protection for important resource values of the area by establishing a larger Wind River Front Management Area and closing the area to mineral leasing, geophysical operations, timber harvesting, and commercial mineral entry. 

Impacts would be slightly more  than Alternative 2 and similar to Alternative 1. 

WSAs 

The continued use of existing roads and trails in the Lake Mountain WSA would impact the area’s suitability as a WSA. 

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails in the Lake Mountain WSA would reduce impacts compared with Alternative 1; however, the area would continue to be impacted by the use of motorized vehicles. 

Closing the WSAs to OHV use would maintain the overall wilderness suitability of the WSAs. 

Same as Alternative 3. 

East Fork River WSR Unit 

Existing mineral leases would allow surface disturbing activities, which would impact the outstanding remarkable characteristics of the area. 

Same as Alternative 1. Prohibiting water impoundments, 

closing the area to new mineral leasing and related exploration, and implementing mineral leasing stipulations would reduce impacts. This would preserve the outstandingly remarkable values. 

Same as Alternative 3. 

Green River WSR Unit 

Existing mineral leases would allow for surface disturbing activities, which would impact the outstanding remarkable characteristics of the area. 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1, except 

prohibiting the development of new range improvements and water impoundments, and implementing mineral leasing stipulations would reduce impacts. This would preserve the outstanding remarkable characteristics of the area. 

Same as Alternative 3. 
Chapter 2—Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS 

2-196 Pinedale RMP 

Summary Comparison of Impacts 

Alternative 1 

(Continuation of Existing 

Management) 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) 

Scab Creek WSR Unit 

Management actions designed to protect the Scab Creek WSA would preserve the outstandingly remarkable characteristics of the WSR values of the area. However, the area would not be included in the WSR System. 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1, except the 

area would be managed as suitable for inclusion in the WSR System. In addition, prohibiting the construction of new range improvements and maintaining the closure to oil and gas leasing would further preserve the outstandingly remarkable characteristics of the area. 

Same as Alternative 3. 

Silver Creek WSR Unit 

Management actions designed to protect the Scab Creek WSA would preserve the outstandingly remarkable characteristics of the WSR values of the area. However, the area would not be included in the WSR System. 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1, except the 

area would be managed as suitable for inclusion in the WSR System. In addition, prohibiting the construction of new range improvements and maintaining the closure to oil and gas leasing would further preserve the outstandingly remarkable characteristics of the area. 

Same as Alternative 3.