Final EIS Summary 

SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION

This Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

describes and analyzes a reasonable range of management alternatives for the public lands and resources 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pinedale Field Office (PFO) in western 

Wyoming (Map 1-1). Within the Pinedale planning area, BLM administers approximately 922,880 acres 

of public land surface and 1,199,280 acres of federal mineral estate in Sublette and Lincoln counties. The 

planning area includes the Rock Creek and Beaver Creek Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC); Lake Mountain and Scab Creek Wilderness Study Areas (WSA); and Boulder Lake, Scab 

Creek, and Upper Green River Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA). 

This RMP revision will result in a land use allocation plan for the Pinedale planning area. Previous sitespecific or project-level implementation decisions, such as those made for the Jonah and Pinedale 

Anticline gas fields, would not be altered by this RMP revision. The analysis in this final EIS considers a 

comprehensive range of alternatives that provide for various levels of resource protection and 

opportunities for motorized and nonmotorized recreational activities, leasing and development of mineral 

resources, livestock grazing, and other land use activities. The final EIS analyzes the potential 

environmental consequences of implementing each management alternative and the potential land 

allocation and/or resource use conflicts. 

PLANNING ISSUES 

The identified planning issues are based on the demands, concerns, conflicts, or problems concerning use 

or management of public lands and resources in the planning area. The planning issues were identified 

through public scoping and information gathered in analyzing the existing management situation in the 

planning area. Based on the input of the public, other government agencies, and BLM and cooperating 

agencies (also known as cooperators), the following 10 key issues or unresolved conflicts were identified: 

• Development of energy resources and minerals-related issues 

• Land tenure adjustment 

• Vegetation management 

• Cultural resources (including national historic trails) and paleontological resource management 

• Travel management—off-highway vehicle (OHV) use 

• Wildland/urban interface 

• Special Status Species management 

• Water quality 

• Special designations 

• Wildlife habitat, including greater sage-grouse. 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE FINAL EIS ALTERNATIVES

Four alternatives are analyzed in detail, all of them multiple use oriented. Each alternative provides for 

resource production and environmental protection. The management prescriptions of the four alternatives 

are described in Chapter 2. Alternatives were developed to establish a framework for measuring the 

Pinedale RMP i 
Summary Final EIS 

impacts that might result from management decisions. The alternatives represent executable approaches 

to managing land and activities consistent with law, regulation, and policy. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) includes 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 have been implemented subsequent to the 1988 plan. 

Minerals 

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

development. 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 greater sage-grouse, raptors, 

and big game and their habitats. In addition, 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 indicated 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, areawide transportation planning would be conducted. 

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

limited to, purchase of rights-of-way (ROW) or easements, land exchange, reciprocal ROWs, and other 

statutory authorities. 

Under Alternative 1, approximately 641,140 acres would be managed as Visual Resource Management 

(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. Threatened and endangered (T&E) species 

and their habitats would be protected. Actions determined to degrade habitat to a point of jeopardizing the 

continued existence of a T&E species would not be allowed. Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and greater sagegrouse use patterns would be monitored. High priority would be given to improvement of wildlife habitat 

through vegetation manipulation. 

Surface disturbance restrictions included in the 1988 RMP ROD for protection of 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 greater 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. 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). 

ii Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Summary 

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. 

Minerals 

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

development. 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 Lease Areas 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 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). 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. Alternative 2 would 

limit OHV use in the Desert General Use area to existing roads and trails. No recreation area management 

plans (RAMP) would be completed, and no new SRMAs would be established under 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 

nonisolated surface features would be allowed if permitted by the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (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). 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). 

Alternative 3 

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

protection for all competing resources while allowing for the production of oil and gas resources. In 

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

Pinedale RMP iii 
Summary Final EIS 

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. 

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. No surface 

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

and bottlenecks (242,960), and parturition areas (35,360 acres) unless other restrictions were applied 

through ACEC or other SD/MA designation. Timing and distance mitigations would be applied to protect 

greater sage-grouse, raptors, and 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 

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 on riparian areas by working with the state to prohibit 

the discharge of produced waters to streams or other nonisolated surface features. 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 

iv Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Summary 

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). 

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 all competing resources. 

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. 

Minerals 

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

The planning area would be divided into four areas for management of oil and gas leasing and 

development (Map 2-9). Intensively Developed Fields would be managed for intensive oil and gas 

activities while protecting wildlife habitats to the extent practicable. 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. In addition, 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 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 242,710 acres; 

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 on riparian areas would be limited by working with 

the state to prohibit the discharge of produced waters to streams or other nonisolated 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. 

Pinedale RMP v 
Summary Final EIS 

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). 

Environmental Consequences 

The environmental consequences that could result from the management prescriptions of the four 

alternatives are described in Chapter 4 and are summarized and compared in Table 2-34, Summary 

Comparison of Impacts. These potential consequences are discussed for each resource program, providing 

an analysis of environmental effects resulting from management of all resources and resource uses. This 

includes an analysis of cumulative effects, which are defined as the impacts that result from the 

incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. 

COOPERATING AGENCIES

The primary role of cooperating agencies (also called cooperators) is to provide special expertise and/or 

assistance to the lead agency throughout the RMP/EIS process. Cooperator roles include participation in 

the scoping process; provision of staff, information, and assistance to the lead agency; performance of (or 

assistance with) independent preparation of analysis where cooperating staff has special expertise; review 

of draft information; and provision of overall advice during the EIS process. 

The following agencies with jurisdiction, special expertise, or interest in the Pinedale RMP EIS 

development process are cooperating agencies:

• Sublette County 

• Sublette County Conservation District 

• Lincoln County 

• Lincoln Conservation District 

• Sweetwater County 

• Sweetwater County Conservation District 

• Town of Pinedale 

• Environmental Protection Agency 

• Wyoming Office of Federal Land Policy 

• Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

• Wyoming Office of State Lands 

• Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

• Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

• Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

• Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

• Wyoming Department of Transportation 

• Wyoming Governor’s Office 

• Wyoming State Geological Survey 

• Wyoming Business Council.

vi Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Summary 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public participation in the EIS process includes a variety of efforts to identify and address public concerns 

and needs. The public involvement process assists the agencies in broadening the information base for 

decisionmaking, informing the public about the RMP EIS and the potential impacts associated with 

various management decisions, and ensuring that public needs and viewpoints are understood by the 

agency. Information is provided to the public through meetings, news releases, the Pinedale RMP 

website, and newsletters. 

Public scoping meetings were held in Rock Springs, Pinedale, and Marbleton, Wyoming, on March 3, 10, 

and 11, 2003, respectively. During the 3 scoping meetings, more than 140 people registered their 

attendance. The meetings were structured in an open house format, with various information tables 

representing issues such as livestock grazing, mineral development, and other resource areas. Comments 

from the public were collected during the scoping meetings and throughout the scoping period through 

the following methods: mail, e-mail, and through the project website. 

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

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

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

concluded on June 18, 2007. Four public hearings were held in Rock Springs, Jackson, Pinedale, and 

Marbleton, Wyoming on April 9, 10, 11, and 12, 2007, respectively. During the Draft RMP EIS public 

comment period, approximately 99,836 comments were received. All comments were reviewed and 

evaluated for response as outlined in BLM Manual H-1790-1. Detailed responses to substantive 

comments are provided in Appendix 27, which is included on a compact disc (CD) on the back cover of 

Volume 2 of the hard copy document. 

MODIFICATIONS IN THE PROPOSED RMP FINAL EIS 

The modifications in the Proposed RMP Final EIS are the result of public comment, incorporation of new 

information, internal review, and changes in management direction. The Proposed RMP is essentially a 

modification of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4) presented in the draft EIS. Modifications to the 

other alternatives were also made as a result of incorporation of new and updated information. 

The following are the primary modifications that were made to the Proposed RMP: 

• Oil and Gas Management: 

– The oil and gas Unavailable Areas have been expanded from 156,900 acres to 439,470 acres 

(Map 2-9). 

– The oil and gas Large-Block NSO Areas have been eliminated from the Proposed RMP. 

– The area of leased federal minerals has been updated to include the current status of leased 

minerals within the planning area. 

• Visual Resource Management: The VRM Class II area has been expanded to include a 3-mile 

buffer on either side of contributing segments of the Lander Trail. 

• Wildlife Management: Data associated with greater sage-grouse leks, big game crucial winter 

range, and big game migration corridors were updated in all four alternatives to include the most 

recent surveys and information. 

Pinedale RMP vii