Final EIS Chapter 4—Introduction 

CHAPTER 4—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The purpose of this chapter is to determine the potential for significant impact of the “federal action” on 

the “human environment.” The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) states that the “human environment” shall be 

interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of 

people with that environment (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §1508.14). The “federal action” is 

the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) selection of a resource management plan (RMP) on which 

future land use actions will be based. 

This chapter objectively evaluates the environmental impacts of implementing each alternative described 

in Chapter 2. This chapter forms the analytic basis for the comparative summary of impacts presented in 

Chapter 2 (Table 2-34, p. 2-183). Chapter 3 describes the existing conditions of the resources and 

resource uses that would be affected by the alternatives. The organization of this chapter parallels that of 

Chapter 3, in that the resource programs are presented in the same order. Because resources and resource 

uses are often interrelated, one section may refer to another. 

4.1 ANALYSIS METHODS

BLM manages public lands for multiple uses in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Land use decisions are made to protect the resources while allowing 

different uses of those resources, such as livestock grazing, energy development, and recreation. To 

ensure that BLM meets its mandate of multiple use in land management actions, the impacts of the 

alternatives on resources and resource uses are identified and assessed as part of the planning process. 

The analysis of the alternatives is focused on identifying the types of impacts anticipated to occur and 

estimating their potential intensity. The analysis is organized by resource program and discloses the 

potential impacts on each resource program from implementing each of the proposed alternatives. The 

impact analysis for Alternative 1 was prepared first to serve as the baseline for alternative comparison. 

Impacts that are common to all alternatives are addressed in a separate subsection to reduce analysis 

redundancy. Because this subsection applies to all the alternatives, it should be reviewed in conjunction 

with the alternative-specific impact analyses. It is important to note that management prescriptions for 

each resource or resource use directly or indirectly relate to each other; therefore, impacts on one 

particular resource program may also apply to other programs. It is therefore recommended that the reader 

review all impact analyses to attain a comprehensive description of the impacts on the resource or 

resource use in question. 

Potential impacts of certain land use activities can be compared visually and numerically among the 

alternatives by using geographic information system (GIS) data. The locations of resources and 

overlapping resource issues are shown in Maps 1-1 through 4-17. The geographic implications associated 

with each management alternative are presented in Tables 2-25 through 2-33 in Chapter 2. These tables 

and maps should be reviewed in conjunction with the impact analyses. 

Acreage calculations used in this analysis are approximate values for alternative comparison and analytic 

purposes only and do not reflect exact measurements of on-the-ground resources and actions. For analysis 

purposes, acreage figures were rounded to the nearest tenth. These acreage values were calculated using 

ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 software. The projection of GIS data that were analyzed to provide the 

acreage calculations is Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 12N (UTM12N), based on the North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). 

Pinedale RMP 4-1 
Chapter 4—Introduction Final EIS 

4.1.1 Types of Impacts 

Throughout this chapter, the terms “impact” and “effect” are used interchangeably. Impacts can be direct, 

indirect, or cumulative. Impacts may be perceived as positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse). Some 

impacts would be positive for some individuals and negative for others; for example, road closures could 

benefit hikers but be a detriment to off-highway vehicle (OHV) users. For this reason, impacts are 

generally not labeled as beneficial or adverse in this chapter. Table 4-1 provides an overview of the 

general types of impacts discussed in this chapter. 

Table 4-1. Types of Impacts 

Type Description 

Direct Impacts 

Direct impacts occur at the same time and place as the action responsible 

for the impact. For example, removal of vegetative cover caused by facility 

construction would be considered a direct impact on vegetation resources. 

Indirect Impacts 

Indirect impacts are temporally and spatially removed from the action 

responsible for the impact, but are related to the action through a process of 

cause and effect. For example, removal of vegetative cover caused by 

facility construction that consequently results in increased surface runoff 

and sedimentation of nearby streams would be considered an indirect 

impact on riparian resources. 

Indirect impacts may reach beyond the natural and physical environment 

(i.e., environmental impact) to include growth-inducing effects and other 

effects related to induced changes to resource uses (i.e., nonenvironmental 

impact). 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of an action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of which agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes 

such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor 

but collectively significant actions that take place over time. 

4.1.2 Availability of Data and Incomplete Information 

The best available information pertinent to the management decisions was used in the development of the 

RMP. Considerable effort has been taken to acquire and convert resource data into digital format for use 

in the plan. 

Certain information was unavailable for use in developing this plan, because inventories either have not 

been conducted or were incomplete. Some of the major types of incomplete and unavailable data include, 

but are not limited to— 

• Incomplete soil survey information for the planning area 

• Incomplete hydrogeologic information for the planning area 

• Incomplete information on range site conditions and vegetation production 

• Unavailable data on forest stand composition, age, and distribution 

• Incomplete information on the location and size of white-tailed prairie dog towns 

• Incomplete information on the location and size of greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas 

• Unavailable data on the oil and gas reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) for the BridgerTeton National Forest. 

4-2 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Introduction 

As a result of these missing data, some of the impacts that result from the proposed management of 

certain resources cannot be quantified. In these cases, impacts are projected in qualitative terms. 

Subsequent project-level analyses will provide the opportunity to collect and examine the site-specific 

inventory data necessary for determining the appropriate application of the RMP-level guidance. In 

addition, ongoing inventory efforts within the planning area will serve to update and refine the 

information used to implement this plan. 

4.1.3 Analysis Assumptions 

Assumptions for analysis are made to assist in determining the potential environmental, social, and 

economic impacts of the alternatives (Chapter 2) on the affected environment (Chapter 3). They are based 

on expected trends (e.g., population growth or decline within the planning area), expected demands (e.g., 

increases in certain kinds of recreational use), and the likelihood of resource development (e.g., the RFD 

scenario for oil and gas). 

Assumptions are for the purpose of analysis only. They are presumed true for the purpose of equitably 

comparing the alternatives. Assumptions do not constrain or define management; they are based on 

observations, historical trends, and professional judgment. Assumptions are generally made for the 

expected life of the RMP, unless otherwise stated. 

General assumptions applicable to all resources and resource uses are described below. Resource-specific 

assumptions are described under each resource program in the sections that follow. 

• The decisions proposed in the alternatives apply to public lands only. However, cumulative 

impact analyses may also consider decisions made for resources managed by other entities or 

individuals. 

• The planning criteria described in Chapter 1 (Section 1.4.2) apply to all alternatives. 

• The alternatives will be implemented as described in Chapter 2. 

• Implementation actions will comply with valid existing rights and all federal laws, regulations, 

and policies. 

• Sufficient funding and personnel will be available to implement the RMP. 

• Appropriate maintenance will be carried out to maintain the functional capability of all 

developments (e.g., roads, fences, and other projects). 

• Monitoring will be completed as indicated, along with any needed adjustments or revisions. 

• Mitigation measures will be applied as described in Chapter 2 and applicable appendices. 

• The Hazard Management and Resource Restoration Program (HMRRP) (Appendix 25) will 

manage the hazardous materials associated with all alternatives in accordance with laws, policies, 

and regulations. The objectives of the HMRRP are to— 

– Protect public health, safety, and the environment on public lands 

– Emphasize waste reduction for BLM-authorized and -initiated actions 

– Comply with applicable federal and state laws 

– Prevent waste contamination from BLM-authorized actions 

Pinedale RMP 4-3 
Chapter 4—Introduction Final EIS 

– Minimize federal exposure to the liabilities associated with hazardous materials 

management and waste management on public lands 

– Integrate pollution prevention, hazardous materials and waste management, and waste 

reduction policies and controls into all BLM programs. 

• The introduction of invasive invertebrates, vertebrates, microorganisms, and pathogens can 

threaten the stability of ecosystems, create serious human health consequences, and cause 

substantial economic burdens. Large majorities of native and non-native species do not pose a 

threat to natural or human systems. However, if any of these species were to become a concern, 

the Pinedale Field Office (PFO) would cooperate and coordinate with appropriate government 

agencies, private industry, and other interested parties involved in public education efforts and 

control, management, and research of invasive species. 

• Surface disturbance projections for leasable minerals development assume one well per well pad 

with a support road and pipeline, for a disturbance projection of 7.1 acres. For each additional 

well added to a well pad, the total (planning area-wide) surface disturbance projection would 

decrease by almost 6 acres (i.e., a pad with two wells, support road, and pipeline would have a 

projected disturbance of 8.4 acres, whereas two individual pads with a single well, road, and 

pipeline would disturb 14.2 acres). With four wells on a pad, the total projected disturbance 

would be decreased by 18 acres (i.e., a pad with four wells, support road, and pipeline would have 

a projected disturbance of 10.4 acres, whereas four individual pads with a single well, road, and 

pipeline would disturb 28.4 acres). One hundred pads with four wells each and support roads and 

pipelines would disturb 1,040 acres, whereas 400 individual wells with a single well, road, and 

pipeline would disturb 2,840 acres. Some wells may be developed with less disturbance than 

these projections, while other wells may result in substantially greater disturbance rates. 

4-4 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Air Resources 

4.2 AIR RESOURCES

This section presents the potential impacts on air quality from BLM management actions. Section 3.2 

presents existing air quality conditions. 

4.2.1 Assumptions 

Assumptions applied to the description of potential air quality impacts include the following: 

• Emission factors recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (EPA 1995) 

are appropriate for all activities, except for those emission factors that have been provided by the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD) concerning 

best available control technology (BACT) requirements. 

• Activity factors (or the quantification of activity for each resource provided by the PFO) are 

appropriate for the base year and future time frames. 

• Any anticipated recreational growth would follow growth trends for Wyoming that have been 

seen during the past 10 years. 

• The qualitative analysis includes only emissions from BLM-administered activities. The 

cumulative analysis (Section 4.19.3) includes emissions from other federal and nonfederal actions 

throughout the state, as calculated by TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. 

• The calculations include criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (HAP). 

• No trona mining activity would occur on BLM land within the planning area. 

• Prescribed and wildland fire emissions are estimated using the Simple Approach Smoke 

Estimation Model (SASEM) (Sestak and Riebau 1988). 

4.2.2 Methods of Analysis 

A qualitative emission comparison approach was selected for analysis of impacts on air quality. 

Quantitative analysis will be required for specific proposals as development projects are defined in the 

future. The WDEQ-AQD will require any future development projects to demonstrate compliance with 

federal and state air quality regulations and standards. Given the uncertainties concerning the number, 

nature, and specific location of future emission sources and activities, the emission comparison approach 

provides a sound basis on which to compare the potential air quality impacts of each alternative. The Air 

Quality Technical Support Document (AQTSD), presented in Appendix 19, provides a detailed list of all 

assumptions used in this impact assessment. 

The emissions inventory was developed for the planning area by using best available information on 

activities on BLM land that was provided by the PFO and summarized in the AQTSD. The calculations 

used emissions factors accepted and recognized by state and federal regulatory agencies. To evaluate 

future emissions, three different time frames were selected for this analysis. The time frames reflect the 

current base-year conditions and both short-term and long-term impacts. It is assumed that any emission 

growth will be constant and linear in time. The inventory time frames are— 

• Current emissions (using the year 2001 as a basis) 

Pinedale RMP 4-5 
Chapter 4—Air Resources Final EIS 

• Ten-year potential emissions for the short term (2011) 

• Twenty-year potential emissions for the long term (2021). 

4.2.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Components of air quality that could be impacted include visibility, air pollutant concentration, and 

atmospheric deposition. 

Upward trends in population growth within the planning area create the potential for long-term additional 

increases in air pollutant emissions from all other resource management programs under all alternatives. 

Particulate matter (PM) emissions from vehicles traversing unpaved roads, as well gaseous tailpipe 

emissions from vehicles would occur. The maintenance of unpaved roads and shoulders of paved resource 

roads would also cause PM emissions and tailpipe emissions (refer to Figure 4-1 and Tables A19-6, A19-

7, and A19-8 in Appendix 19). 

Several of the resource areas listed below (air quality monitoring, cultural management, paleontology, 

special designations and management areas [SD/MA], livestock grazing, wild horses, wildlife and fish, 

socioeconomics) would have minimal impacts on air quality (refer to Figure 4-1 and Tables A19-6, A19-

7, and A19-8 in Appendix 19). 

Air quality monitoring activities, including building monitoring stations and vehicular travel to and from 

the monitoring stations to service them, would have minimal impact on air resources. Information 

obtained from monitoring would add to the knowledge base from which future decisions related to air 

quality would be made. 

Very short-term, localized, and increased fugitive dust emissions would occur during excavations for data 

recovery at cultural resource sites. Short-term, localized, and increased vehicular fugitive dust emissions 

would occur during excavations at and travel to and from paleontological sites. 

The use of heavy equipment such as logging trucks during timber hauling operations on paved and 

unpaved roads would cause emissions of PM, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOx), and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). The burning of slash piles after timber harvest would cause short-term 

emissions of PM and CO. During timber harvest, the use of skidders or tractors for skidding timber 

materials from the harvesting area to the loading or decking area would produce some of the same 

emissions, but to a lesser degree. 

The various construction activities (such as wind power facilities, communications sites, transmission 

lines, and pipeline projects) authorized under lands and realty management would produce emissions of 

PM. The main causes of these emissions would be disturbing the soil and traveling on unpaved roads. 

Construction activities would result in tailpipe emissions from vehicular travel and emissions from 

equipment use. 

Vehicular travel associated with moving livestock and constructing and maintaining range improvements 

would generate tailpipe emissions and dust. 

Air emissions from combustion processes and construction activities would be produced from all the 

activities associated with oil and gas development and mineral mining. 

All phases of oil and gas development (including exploration, well pad construction, well development, 

drilling, production, well abandonment, and road closures) would produce air emissions. Oil and gas 

4-6 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Air Resources 

exploration, development, and production activities would have the greatest impact on air quality of BLM 

activities. During exploration and development activities, traffic on unpaved and paved roads would cause 

emissions of PM, CO, NOx, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and VOCs. During well development and completion, 

well flaring would cause PM, CO, NOx, SO2, and VOC emissions (including HAPs). In addition, during 

well development, drilling activities and construction activities would cause particulate emissions and 

tailpipe emissions as a result of heavy equipment usage. 

Emissions of NOx and CO from compression activities (burning of compressor engine fuel) would occur. 

PM, CO, NOx, and VOCs would be produced from any glycol operations and flashing. Any flaring would 

cause PM, CO, NOx, SO2, and VOC emissions (which includes HAPs). 

PM from travel over unpaved roads and demolition activities would result from well abandonment and 

road closure activities. Fugitive PM would also result from truck travel during well pad construction, gas 

well drilling, and production phases. 

The use of OHVs would cause both fugitive dust emissions of PM from traffic on unpaved trails and 

emissions of PM, CO, NOx, and VOCs directly from the tailpipe. In the winter, tailpipe emissions would 

occur primarily from snowmobiles. 

Trucks and heavy equipment (chainsaws, fire engines, bulldozers) used in vegetation management and 

control would cause dust as they travel over unpaved roads. In addition, prescribed fires used for 

vegetation treatment would cause particulate and gaseous emissions. Trucks and equipment used to 

conduct and control prescribed fire would cause tailpipe emissions. Areas receiving vegetation treatment 

would add short-term increases in PM until vegetation recovered sufficiently to stabilize exposed soil. 

No direct impacts on air resources would occur from visual resource management (VRM). Management 

practices and mitigation measures designed to retain visual quality in VRM Class I and II areas would 

reduce or eliminate emissions from development and OHV use. Management as VRM Class III and IV 

areas would create the potential for long-term increases in emissions in those areas. 

Trucks, heavy equipment, and helicopters used to gather wild horses would cause a short-term increase in 

tailpipe and fugitive dust emissions. 

Wildland and prescribed fires would cause short-term emissions of PM and CO, which could in turn 

spread out over large portions of the planning area, depending on the size of the fire and on wind 

conditions. In addition, the use of heavy equipment during fire suppression activities would result in 

particulate emissions, CO, NOx, and hydrocarbons (VOC and HAPs). Also, recent studies have suggested 

that mercury can be released from fire activities. Emissions would be generated by internal combustion 

engines through vehicular exhausts (referred to as tailpipe emissions) and directly by machinery engines 

(chainsaws and others). 

Construction activity to manage wildlife and fish habitat would contribute to emissions of PM. To a lesser 

degree, CO, NOx, SO2, and VOCs would be generated from tailpipes. These impacts would be short term. 

Impacts on air quality would result from activities in SD/MAs that cause exhaust emissions and fugitive 

dust. Those activities associated with the management of SD/MAs (e.g., fire management and project 

construction) are covered under the other resource topics. 

Please see Section 4.19.3 for a discussion of global climate change impacts. 

Pinedale RMP 4-7 
Chapter 4—Air Resources Final EIS 

4.2.4 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

Figure 4-1 summarizes total and specific pollutant emissions under each of the alternatives. Alternative 1 

emissions have been estimated for the base year (2001), 2011, and 2021. Under this alternative, the total 

NOx emissions from BLM activities would increase over time from the base-year level of 7,724 tons per 

year to 23,524 tons per year by 2021. 

4.2.5 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

Figure 4-1 summarizes total and specific pollutant emissions under each of the alternatives. Alternative 2 

emissions have been estimated for the base year (2001), 2011, and 2021. Under this alternative, the total 

NOx emissions from BLM activities would increase over time from the base-year level of 7,724 tons per 

year to 25,050 tons per year by 2021, the highest of any alternative. 

4.2.6 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

Figure 4-1 summarizes total and specific pollutant emissions under each of the alternatives. Alternative 3 

emissions have been estimated for the base year (2001), 2011, and 2021. Under this alternative, the total 

NOx emissions from BLM activities would increase over time from the base-year level of 7,724 tons per 

year to 18,877 tons per year by 2021, the lowest of any alternative. 

4.2.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

Figure 4-1 summarizes total and specific pollutant emissions under each of the alternatives. Alternative 4 

emissions have been estimated for the base year (2001), 2011, and 2021. Under this alternative, the total 

NOx emissions from BLM activities would increase over time from the base-year level of 7,724 tons per 

year to 23,170 tons per year by 2021. 

4-8 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section presents potential impacts on cultural resources management from BLM management actions 

for other resource programs. Chapter 3 (Section 3.3) describes existing conditions concerning cultural 

resources. 

4.3.1 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• There will continue to be discoveries of cultural resources throughout the planning area. 

• There is a direct correlation between the number of sites that could be impacted by various 

actions and the degree, nature, and quantity of surface-disturbing activities within the planning 

area, coupled with the degree of increased human presence. 

• There is a direct relationship between the frequency of human use in an area and the potential for 

cultural resources to be impacted. 

• When referring to cultural resources, the term “significant” is used instead of “eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),” so that the nontechnical reader can more 

easily understand the relative importance of a site. 

• Protection of cultural resources will accord with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

coordination requirements; with input from local publics, other interested parties, and Native 

American groups; and with applicable federal regulations. 

4.3.2 Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources within the 

planning area, reviews of existing literature, and information provided by other agencies. Spatial analysis 

was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 software. Effects are quantified when possible; in the 

absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes described using 

ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate. 

The criteria for assessing impacts were those stipulated in the regulations for Protection of Historic 

Properties (36 CFR §800), which state that an undertaking may have an effect when it— 

May alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that 

qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would 

diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, or association [36 CFR §800.5(a)(1)]. 

Examples of effects include— 

• Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property 

• Property alteration that is not consistent with the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) 

Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR §68) and applicable 

guidelines 

Pinedale RMP 4-9 
Chapter 4—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

• Removal of the property from its historic location 

• Changes to the character of the property’s use or to physical features within the property’s setting, 

which contribute to the property’s historic significance 

• Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that are out of character with the property 

or that alter its setting 

• Neglect of a property that causes its deterioration, except when such neglect and deterioration are 

recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or 

Native Hawaiian organization 

• Transfer, lease, or sale of the property out of federal ownership or control without adequate and 

legally enforceable restrictions or conditions for ensuring long-term preservation of the property’s 

historic significance [36 CFR §800.5(a)(2)]. 

All of the alternatives discussed below may have direct and indirect effects on cultural and historic 

resources. Some of these impacts can be short term and with some activities are limited to the duration of 

construction periods. Other impacts can be long term or permanent, such as those effects that result from 

development or other ongoing activities. 

There would be impacts on cultural resources if any of the following were to happen: 

• Implementation of management actions that (1) result in impacts on properties either listed or 

determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, or on properties that are considered important 

to Native American groups; and (2) cannot be satisfactorily mitigated as determined through 

consultation with the SHPO and other interested parties. 

• Implementation of management actions that result in impacts on the viewshed of select historic 

trails and historic sites, on properties considered important to Native American groups, or on 

properties whose setting contributes to the importance of the site. 

4.3.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Standard management procedures for cultural resources include on-the-ground inventories, site 

recordation and evaluation, data recovery excavations, archival research, informant interviews, Historic 

American Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation, 

stabilization, consultation with Native American groups, condition assessments, photographic 

recordation, and historic research. These procedures would protect most cultural properties from 

significant damage or data loss stemming from BLM-permitted or otherwise authorized activities, and 

such procedures would result in an expansion of the cultural resource database and in further 

understanding of the area’s history and prehistory. 

Impacts on cultural resources discovered during other management activities (e.g., archeological features 

found during but not prior to permitted surface-disturbing activities) could be greater and more damaging 

than impacts on cultural resources that had been identified prior to the start of other management 

activities. This is because damage to a site on which a cultural resource is discovered usually occurs prior 

to that site’s recordation and evaluation, thereby complicating evaluation and mitigation procedures. Such 

impacts on prehistoric site discoveries could often be mitigated through data recovery excavations, which 

would increase understanding of prehistory to varying degrees, depending on the nature and extent of the 

discovery and the damage to it. 

4-10 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources potentially affected by viewshed impacts are generally property types eligible for the 

NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C, for which integrity of setting is a contributing factor to those resources’ 

NRHP eligibility. 

There would likely be increased impact on cultural resources from management activities that promote an 

increased human presence in the planning area (for example, the creation of new roads or the 

development or enhancement of recreational uses). 

Continued implementation of the Shell/Ultra Lander Trail Programmatic Agreement (PA) would provide 

ongoing management directions for Shell and Ultra that are germane to their Anticline Field oil and gas 

development in the vicinity of the Lander Trail. As Shell and Ultra intensify or expand their Anticline 

developments, the PA may need to be amended accordingly. 

Maintaining proper air quality helps protect and preserve atmospherically sensitive cultural resources 

such as rock art, aspen art, and historic and prehistoric wooden structures. Air quality management 

actions such as the development of air quality monitoring stations would have relatively minor effects on 

cultural properties. A general downward trend in air quality would affect viewshed-sensitive cultural 

resources. 

Implementation of the cultural resource management program’s objectives and management actions 

would generally protect cultural properties from those impacts resulting from the permitted activities of 

other management programs. The increased knowledge that comes from cultural resource inventories, site 

recordation, evaluation, archival research, informant interviews, and data recovery efforts would further 

enhance understanding of the cultural resources in the planning area. Data recovery excavations, however, 

could remove all or part of the in situ cultural materials at a site, thereby causing potential data loss in the 

future if new data recovery and analysis techniques are developed. Site damage, data loss, and other 

nonmitigated impacts would occur throughout the planning area by means of various types of road 

maintenance, as well as from trespassing, illegal collecting and looting of artifacts, and both natural and 

human-caused erosion and deterioration. 

Timbering, logging, clear-cutting, building access roads, and moving heavy equipment would all have the 

potential to directly impact historic and archeological resources both on and below the surface. The 

greatest amount of ground disturbance would be caused by activities associated with clear-cut harvesting 

on commercial forestland. Soil erosion resulting from logging activities could accelerate deterioration of 

cultural properties. Noncommercial firewood gathering could result in unmitigated impacts on cultural 

properties, including tree carvings and historic and prehistoric wooden structures in or near areas where 

firewood is gathered, and these cultural properties could be damaged or destroyed by cutting and 

gathering activities. 

Construction activities that disturb the ground surface and subsurface in right-of-way (ROW) corridors, 

and which are the result of ROW approvals, would have the potential to directly impact cultural 

resources, particularly if the resources were not identified prior to the construction activity. It is relatively 

common for road and pipeline construction through culturally sensitive sediments to lead to subsurface 

prehistoric discoveries. Data recovery excavations that enhance understanding of prehistory could often 

mitigate the impact on discoveries. There would likely be considerable impacts where undocumented 

NRHP-eligible archeological sites are affected but have not been recognized (and therefore are not being 

treated as a discovery). 

Lands and realty actions that result in construction of structures visible on or above the surface (e.g., 

communication towers, compressor stations, tanks, and wind turbines) would have the potential to 

Pinedale RMP 4-11 
Chapter 4—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

directly impact the visual integrity of those classes of cultural properties that derive their significance 

from natural settings and settings relatively devoid of modern intrusion. 

Land exchanges and ownership adjustments could have effects on cultural resources located on the 

affected parcels. Transfer of lands from federal ownership would remove cultural properties from BLM 

jurisdiction and control and would allow these properties to be impacted by private or state-sponsored 

activities. Cultural resource inventories and evaluations would be required prior to transferring lands from 

federal jurisdiction, ensuring that identified sites have been adequately documented, evaluated, and 

mitigated prior to ownership changes. Sites that are not identified prior to transfer from public ownership 

would be subject to the effects of management by future landowners. Cultural properties on lands 

transferred to federal ownership would be subject to greater protection from surface-disturbing actions. 

BLM could retain or obtain lands containing important cultural and historic resources, providing 

protection under federal management policies. 

Management actions associated with livestock grazing would have both direct and indirect impacts on 

cultural resources. Implementing healthy rangeland standards and achieving proper functioning condition 

(PFC) and rangeland health objectives would contribute to improved range conditions and soil and 

vegetation stability, thereby protecting cultural resources. 

Range improvements that disturb the ground surface could result in impacts on cultural resources. 

Subsurface prehistoric discoveries that are a result of reservoir, water well, or fence construction would 

occasionally occur in culturally sensitive sediments. Data recovery excavations could mitigate the impacts 

of these discoveries. 

Livestock trampling and wallowing could directly impact cultural artifacts and features on or just below 

the surface by breaking or scattering these artifacts. Alternatively, cattle trails and other heavily trampled 

and exposed areas could unearth otherwise undetected cultural resources and allow them to be identified 

and recorded. Livestock scratching and rubbing would impact certain types of cultural properties, 

including historic and prehistoric structures and rock art sites. In most instances, these types of animal 

behaviors would result in minimal or localized impacts. There would be long-term impacts from grazing 

through repeated trampling on cultural sites over time; for example, in established stock driveways, along 

fence lines, on rock alignments, near water sources, and in sheltered or shaded areas. Springs are 

especially sensitive areas, because they have a high potential for being prehistoric sites. Range 

improvement activities that include construction of structures visible on or above the surface could 

directly affect the visual integrity of cultural properties deriving their significance from natural settings or 

from settings relatively devoid of modern intrusion. 

Subsurface prehistoric discoveries resulting from well pad construction are relatively common in 

culturally sensitive sediments. For example, cultural resources located in portions of the Jonah Field, 

particularly along portions of Sand Draw within the San Arcacio soil type, have been impacted during 

energy extraction activities. There are similar soils and discovery situations in the Southern Anticline 

along Bull and Mud Springs Draws. There have been discoveries of large, complex, and abundant 

prehistoric sites in the sensitive sediments along the New Fork River and in the upland sagebrush steppe 

south of the Piney Cutoff (the Meridian Site, 48SU1751), despite implementation of standard inventory 

and evaluation strategies. Impacts on cultural resources discovered during construction activities would 

be minimized either by relocating the surface-disturbing activity away from the sensitive sediments or 

through appropriate mitigation of the activity. Nonmitigated impacts would likely occur where 

undocumented NRHP-eligible archeological sites are impacted but have not been recognized (and 

therefore are not being treated as a discovery). 

4-12 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

Minerals management actions resulting in construction that is visible on or above the surface would have 

the potential to directly impact the visual integrity of cultural properties that derive their significance from 

natural settings or from settings relatively devoid of modern intrusion. For example, portions of the 

Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff viewshed, in particular, have been affected by oil and gas development. 

Traffic relating to development of the Middle Anticline has resulted in the introduction of visual, audible, 

and atmospheric conditions that are out of character with the Lander Trail, a National Historic Trail. 

Locatable and salable minerals actions generally would affect only small and localized areas. Impacts on 

cultural resources from locatable and salable minerals extraction activities would be similar to those 

impacts occurring from leasable minerals activities, but on a much smaller scale. 

Paleontological inventories, excavations, and collections generally do not create large areas of surface 

disturbance that would significantly impact cultural resources. In addition, most paleontological resources 

are located in areas of pre-Holocene depositions or in bedrock exposures that are not conducive to the 

presence of cultural resources. Impacts on cultural resources from management of paleontological 

resources, if they occur, would be minor. 

Recreational activities within the planning area would have direct and indirect effects on cultural 

resources. Special recreation management area (SRMA) actions that encourage recreation and 

development of facilities could impact cultural resources directly through ground disturbing activities and 

indirectly through the ongoing presence of more extensive human activity. Subsurface prehistoric 

discoveries occasionally would occur as a result of SRMA actions. Increased public exposure to cultural 

resource issues would increase the awareness and knowledge of the overall importance of cultural 

resources. Historic trails would be impacted by recreational use, because travel, camping, and historic 

reenactments all affect the physical integrity of trails through modification of their original ruts and 

swales and displacement of associated historic artifacts and features. 

Subsurface prehistoric discoveries occasionally would occur as a result of camping area, parking area, and 

trail construction. Impacts on cultural resources discovered during construction activities would be 

minimized by relocating the surface-disturbing activity or through appropriate mitigation of the activities. 

The soils management program generally would provide a long-term, indirect benefit to cultural resources 

by minimizing soil erosion, thereby preserving cultural properties. 

In general, OHV travel on improved roads would not directly impact cultural properties. Increased 

transportation access would result in more visitors, thereby increasing the potential for inadvertent 

damage to cultural properties. Road closures would help to protect cultural resources by reducing or 

eliminating traffic through sites. Construction and maintenance of roads would have the potential to 

directly impact cultural resources, particularly if the cultural resources were not identified prior to those 

activities. Subsurface prehistoric discoveries resulting from road and trail construction are relatively 

common. Significant impacts would likely occur where undocumented NRHP-eligible archeological sites 

are impacted but not recognized (and therefore have not been treated as a discovery). Generally, more 

roads translate into more impacts on cultural resources and to unmitigated cumulative effects. Off-road 

travel on nondesignated routes could also impact cultural resources through increased erosion and direct 

artifact and archeological feature displacement. The majority of impacts on cultural resources from OHV 

travel would result from repeated use and subsequent erosion of two-track roads through archeological 

sites. 

Seasonal use of over-the-snow recreational motorized equipment would have little impact on cultural 

resources. The seasonal closures to protect winter habitats and restrictions on nonwinter motorized 

vehicles would generally result in less surface disturbance and prevent erosion and resource degradation. 

Pinedale RMP 4-13 
Chapter 4—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

Vegetation manipulation efforts (e.g., aspen rejuvenation, sagebrush manipulation, chaining, winter range 

enhancement, experimental vegetation efforts) could have direct and indirect effects on cultural resources 

commensurate with the amount of surface disturbance from those activities. Some vegetation treatments 

would generally enhance surface exposure (at least in the short term), allowing otherwise undetected 

cultural materials to be identified and recorded. Soil erosion from loss of vegetation could accelerate 

deterioration of cultural properties. The use of chemical treatments could protect flammable cultural 

resources that otherwise might be impacted if prescribed burning was used. However, the effect of 

chemical treatments on archeologically sensitive soils (or on soil characteristics such as pH) is not fully 

understood at present. 

Cultural resources eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C for which integrity of setting is a 

contributing factor to their eligibility (as well as Native American sacred or respected sites) would be 

protected by VRM Class II designation. Any cultural properties within a VRM Class I area would benefit 

from the prohibition of surface disturbance. However, fewer cultural resources would be identified, 

documented, and recorded in VRM Class I areas because of the limitations placed on development 

activities and the consequent reduction in the need for cultural resource inventories. VRM Class II 

designations would help protect cultural resources by limiting visual impacts. Cultural properties 

benefiting from VRM Class II designations would generally include national historic trails (e.g., the 

Lander Trail) and certain archeological features or places considered sacred to or respected by Native 

Americans (e.g., rock features and alignments; rock art; burials; natural, historic, and cultural landscapes). 

Management actions associated with watershed and water quality would have direct and indirect impacts 

on cultural resources. Controlling or preventing surface-disturbing activities in riparian habitat would 

contribute to improved range conditions and to soil and vegetation stability, thus protecting cultural 

resources. Certain development projects would have surface-disturbing potential that could expose and 

impact cultural sites, particularly if cultural resources were not identified during required inventories prior 

to the development activity. 

Fire management actions would have direct and indirect impacts on cultural resources. Direct damage to 

cultural resources would occur as a result of the wildland fires themselves and through surface 

disturbances caused by fire suppression activities (e.g., construction of fire lines, bulldozing access roads, 

and general movement of heavy equipment). Ground disturbing and postfire rehabilitation activities could 

also have a direct impact on cultural resources. Fire management actions that minimize the potential for 

devastating wildland fires would have the added benefit of protecting flammable cultural resources such 

as historic and prehistoric wooden structures, rock art, and aspen carvings. Fire, either wildland or 

prescribed, can damage surficial cultural materials such as wood and ceramic artifacts. Surficial lithic 

materials can also be affected by fire. Fire retardants and other chemicals could affect soil chemistry, 

which would in turn impact the analysis of subsurface archeological deposits. Rock art, either Native 

American or Euro-American, could be damaged by smoke and soot, as well as by rock exfoliation or 

spalling caused by extreme heat. 

Wildland fires would generally enhance surface exposure for postfire inventory (at least in the short 

term), allowing otherwise undetected and nonflammable cultural materials to be identified and recorded. 

Soil erosion from the loss of vegetation as a result of the fire could accelerate deterioration of cultural 

properties. 

Management actions associated with wildlife and fisheries habitats could have direct and indirect impacts 

on cultural resources. Controlling or preventing surface-disturbing activities in sensitive wildlife habitats 

would contribute to improved range conditions and soil and vegetation stability, thus protecting cultural 

resources. Protection of wildlife habitats (such as greater sage-grouse leks, white-tailed prairie dog towns, 

riparian habitats, and fisheries) would also help to preserve cultural sites located in those protected areas. 

4-14 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

Certain wildlife and fisheries development projects would create surface disturbances that could expose 

and impact cultural sites. 

In general, cultural resources would be more protected through area of critical environmental concern 

(ACEC) and SD/MA designations and associated management prescriptions. Impacts on cultural 

resources within the Scab Creek wilderness study area (WSA), for example, would be minimal because 

occupancy restrictions and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities would continue. Restrictions on 

OHV use, seasonal closures, and other surface disturbance restrictions would all have impacts on cultural 

resources. SD/MA designations driven by or in support of proactive cultural resource initiatives would 

provide the greatest degree of cultural resources protection. 

4.3.4 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 1. 

Mineral development (locatable, leasable, and salable) would result in both direct and indirect impacts on 

cultural resources located in the planning area during the next 20 years. It is anticipated that 7,192 oil and 

gas wells would be drilled through 2020, disturbing an estimated 43,022 acres. 

Establishing the Pinedale Glacial area as a National Natural Landmark (NNL) would aid in preserving or 

more proactively managing cultural resources located within that area. The Pinedale Glacial area contains 

important paleosols, the study of which can add greatly to the understanding of Pleistocene environments 

and early man’s adaptation to this changing environment. 

Soil erosion resulting from OHV use could accelerate deterioration of cultural properties. Cultural 

resource sites within the Desert General Use Area would be impacted by the open OHV use designation. 

Cultural resources in areas closed to OHV use (e.g., within sensitive historic trails areas or WSAs) would 

be better protected. 

The strategic placement of roads, wells, and storage tanks in the vicinity of historic properties and 

significant trail segments would partially mitigate the visual resource impacts of those constructed 

structures. Surface-disturbing activities would not be allowed within one-quarter mile of a National 

Historic Trail segment. Although this would provide protection for the historic trail “rut” in the immediate 

trail area, it would not adequately mitigate the impact on the overall trail setting. 

4.3.5 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 2. 

Implementation of a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) would add only minimal additional 

protection to cultural properties from impacts resulting from other management programs. Under this 

alternative, impacts on cultural resources from cultural resource management actions would generally be 

greater than those under Alternative 1. Some cultural resources could be affected by activities in areas not 

withdrawn or acquired. 

Under this alternative, portions of the Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff Trail (and associated Site 

48LN300) would receive greater protection from visual intrusions than under Alternative 1. Cultural 

Pinedale RMP 4-15 
Chapter 4—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

properties in the vicinity of the trails could also be affected by increased surface-disturbing activities in 

the area. There would be little protection afforded to those sites considered sacred or sensitive to modern 

Native Americans, because viewshed preservation efforts such as no surface occupancy (NSO) 

restrictions would be eliminated for sites (other than the Lander Trail) that derive partial significance 

from their natural settings. 

Commercial logging and forest product extraction would likely increase under this alternative. Logging 

activities such as skidding trees and building access roads, which involve the movement of heavy 

equipment, would therefore have somewhat more potential to directly impact historic and archeological 

resources on and below the surface. Logging activities would increase soil erosion, thereby increasing 

impacts on cultural properties. 

Significant impacts on most cultural resources from lands and realty actions would continue to be 

avoided. However, the potential for significant impacts on previously undocumented and unrecognized 

cultural resources in culturally sensitive soils would be the greatest under this alternative and therefore 

greater than under Alternative 1, because more land would be disturbed. The 5,000 acres of BLM land 

administratively available for disposal consideration would result in impacts on cultural resources, 

because cultural properties are known to exist on some of those parcels. This impact would be less than 

under Alternative 1. Restrictions on the height and placement of communication towers would reduce 

direct and visual impacts on cultural properties. 

Under this alternative, impacts on cultural resources from the management of livestock grazing would 

increase from those levels identified under Alternative 1. Increasing the available animal unit months 

(AUM) within the planning area could result in increased rates of erosion and other disturbances. Direct 

ground disturbances and viewshed impacts would be greater because of the likely increase in range 

improvement projects in support of livestock productivity. Impacts from livestock trampling, wallowing, 

rubbing, and scratching, as well as from soil erosion, would also be likely to increase. 

Leasable minerals resource development would create more ground disturbance than any other 

management action and directly affect the greatest number of cultural properties. It is anticipated that 

7,804 oil and gas wells would be developed under this alternative, disturbing 46,739 acres of land. 

Potential impacts on cultural resources would increase, because more acreage would be open to oil and 

gas leasing, and there would be fewer constraints. Areas that are unavailable for leasing or are otherwise 

restricted from development, surface-disturbing activities, or surface occupancy would be greatly 

reduced. Geophysical activities with fewer constraints would be allowed over a larger area, and impacts 

from vehicle travel would thereby increase. 

Under this alternative, there would be a greater potential for oil and gas development to cause direct 

impacts on cultural resources, owing to the increased likelihood of unmitigated effects on previously 

undocumented and unrecognized NRHP-eligible archeological sites. Greater impacts on sensitive cultural 

resource areas would generally result from increased development. 

A greater number of cultural resource inventories and site mitigations (e.g., excavations) would result 

from the likely increase in leasable minerals development and associated ground disturbances, which 

would in turn increase the archeological (and potentially historic) knowledge base. 

Under this alternative, the potential impacts on cultural resources from paleontology actions would be 

similar to those outlined under Alternative 1. However, NNL, research natural area (RNA), and ACEC 

designations for areas of unique natural history would not be pursued, and therefore any cultural resources 

within these areas would not benefit from the surface disturbance restrictions that are applied with these 

designation categories. 

4-16 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

Soils management actions under this alternative would continue to provide long-term, indirect benefits to 

cultural resources by acting to minimize soil erosion, thereby preserving cultural properties. However, 

under this alternative, measures to protect soils from erosion would not be as intensive in some areas as 

those measures would be under Alternative 1. This could result in increased impacts on cultural sites from 

soil erosion. 

Under this alternative, transportation and access management impacts from road development would 

generally be greater than under Alternative 1, because there would be an increase in road, pipeline, and 

access projects. ROWs would not be limited to common routes, but could include riparian/wetlands, 100-

year flood plains, and other such areas with a high density of cultural resource sites; this would potentially 

increase the impacts on cultural resources by creating additional ground disturbance as a result of these 

ROW projects. 

The types and degree of impacts on cultural resources from OHV use within the planning area would 

increase overall as compared to the types and degree of impacts under Alternative 1, except in the Desert 

General Use Area, which would be limited to existing roads and trails. Travel within the planning area 

would be allowed with fewer stipulations, resulting in a greater potential for impacts. Impacts on cultural 

resources would increase as a result of erosion, because the number of trails and two-track roads through 

areas containing archeological sites would increase. Limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails on the 

237,360 acres in the Desert General Use area would minimize soil disturbance, thus reducing damage to 

previously unexposed cultural properties. 

Under this alternative, the impacts on cultural resources from VRM actions would be greater than those 

outlined under Alternative 1. Because VRM Class II and Class III areas would be greatly reduced in size, 

more acreage would be subject to disturbance. This could directly impact cultural resources that would no 

longer be situated within VRM Class I, II, or III areas. Cultural resources such as the Lander Trail, the 

Sublette Cutoff, and certain Native American sites would be more prone to such impacts, because the 

integrity of their natural setting, one aspect of integrity that contributes to consideration of National 

Register eligibility, would be more prone to impacts. A VRM Class IV designation involving 717,390 

acres of the planning area provides very little nonindustrialized viewshed, and this affects those classes of 

sites for which integrity of natural setting is an important aspect of their overall integrity. 

Most actions from the water quality and watershed program would affect cultural resources. Discharge of 

produced water onto public lands could have an impact on cultural resources because of increased erosion 

and changes in soil chemistry. An increase in impacts could occur because of the management of riparian 

areas for livestock benefit, which could lead to increased trampling around and erosion of cultural sites. 

Actions that directly disturb the ground surface (such as facilities construction) could increase in flood 

plains and wetland/riparian areas under this alternative, which could increase direct impacts on cultural 

resources. 

Under this alternative, there would probably be fewer wildland fires (that could impact cultural resources) 

suppressed than under Alternative 1, which could increase the damage to unknown flammable cultural 

resources, including (but not limited to) historic and prehistoric wooden structures and aspen carvings. 

Damage to unknown rock art from extreme heat and smoke would also be slightly more likely to occur 

under this alternative. Impacts on cultural resources through surface disturbances caused by fire 

suppression activities (e.g., construction of fire lines, bulldozing of access roads, and general movement 

of heavy equipment) would be diminished. Short-term enhanced surface exposure would increase because 

burning would remove vegetation, and additional nonflammable cultural resources would likely be 

exposed for identification and recordation. 

Pinedale RMP 4-17 
Chapter 4—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

Most management actions designed to manage and protect wildlife and fish habitats would have some 

impact on cultural resources. Under this alternative, there would be reduced restrictions on surface 

disturbances in wildlife habitat areas and especially on winter ranges. Additional impacts on cultural 

resources could result from increases in allowable surface disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing 

to protect wildlife migrations in the potential Trapper’s Point ACEC and the Upper Green River 

bottleneck area would reduce surface disturbances and human presence in these areas. 

Reducing the number of SD/MAs under this alternative could result in increased cultural resource 

impacts, because an SD/MA designation and activity plan implementation generally result in reduced 

surface disturbance and greater land use restrictions. Establishing the Trappers Point ACEC would have 

effects on cultural resources because of the density of National Register eligible historic properties and 

sites considered sacred or important to modern Native Americans located within the 550 acres of this 

ACEC. 

4.3.6 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected under 

Alternative 3. 

The impact on cultural resources from air quality and paleontological resources management would be 

similar to that under Alternative 1. 

The management objectives of the cultural resource program would be oriented toward enhancing the 

value of cultural resources. Under this alternative, the impact on cultural resources from cultural resource 

management actions would be less than under Alternative 1 and far less than under Alternative 2. A 

greater number of cultural properties and their values would be preserved because more proactive efforts 

would be implemented. Actions such as not leasing for oil and gas development in sensitive cultural 

resource areas, using NSO restrictions at cultural sites, preparing CRMPs, and conducting proactive 

(Section 110) inventories would all have impacts on the cultural resource program. Focusing on the 

avoidance and confidentiality of cultural resources would serve to further reduce overall impacts. 

Identification and inventory of cultural program–derived priority areas before other management actions 

are proposed would help to preemptively protect cultural resources from both direct and indirect impacts, 

and additional cultural properties would be added to the cultural resource database. 

Areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing would reduce potential impacts on highly significant, highly 

sensitive cultural properties. The boundary of Site 48SU301 would be expanded, which would provide 

greater protection to and lessen the impacts on related Site 48SU1755. A CRMP would be written 

specifically to manage impacts on Archeological District 48SU4000, which would provide the most 

effective management for this resource in light of the infill development of the Jonah gas field. The 

archeological district could undergo excavations and other mitigations if or when surface-disturbing 

activity is pursued in the area or in a proactive Section 110 preservation effort. 

A VRM Class II designation within 3 miles of the Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff, and a prohibition on 

construction activities within the viewshed of NRHP-contributing segments of both the Lander Trail and 

the Sublette Cutoff, would be implemented under this alternative. Further, the area within 1 mile of these 

trails, as well as several National Register-quality sites, would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

Compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, these stipulations would provide greater protection from direct and 

indirect impacts on the sites, greatly reduce visual impacts on the trails, and decrease the potential impacts 

on other cultural resources within the buffer zones by reducing surface-disturbing activities in the areas. 

Cultural resource inventories conducted prior to surface-disturbing actions would be reduced in these 

4-18 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

protection areas, though much of this area is already inventoried. The implementation, as necessary, of 

CRMPs specifically to manage impacts on historic trails would further benefit trail preservation. 

Commercial logging and forest product extraction would likely decrease under this alternative compared 

to Alternatives 1 and 2. Logging activities, such as skidding trees, building access roads, and moving 

heavy equipment, would therefore have somewhat less potential to directly impact historic and 

archeological resources. Soil erosion resulting from logging activities would be slightly reduced, which 

could increase the preservation of cultural properties. More selective cutting would occur in favor of 

clear-cutting, which would reduce the overall threat to cultural resources. 

Lands and realty actions that disturb the ground surface or viewshed could impact cultural resources, just 

as under Alternative 1. The withdrawals proposed under this alternative (65,750 acres) are greatly 

increased from those proposed under Alternative 1, which would substantially reduce the potential effects 

on cultural properties, because less land would be available for development. The smaller acreage (790 

acres) available for disposal consideration under this alternative could result in fewer impacts on cultural 

resources, because a larger number of cultural properties would remain under BLM protection. ROW 

avoidance areas would be expanded and fewer new ROW routes would be allowed, which would 

potentially decrease the impact on cultural resources that would have occurred if additional ground 

disturbance from the construction of new ROWs were allowed to continue. 

Similar to Alternative 2, restrictions on communication towers’ height and placement could reduce direct 

and visual impacts on cultural properties. Further, any additional communication facilities would be 

restricted to existing developed sites, which would also reduce potential impacts on cultural properties. 

Prohibiting wind energy development in certain sensitive areas could protect cultural properties from 

direct ground disturbance and visual effects related to this type of development, particularly from wind 

turbine placements. 

Under this alternative, the potential would remain for significant impacts on previously undocumented 

and unrecognized cultural resources in culturally sensitive soils as a result of lands and realty actions, but 

this potential would be less than that anticipated under Alternative 1. Under this alternative, cultural 

resource inventories conducted in support of other program proposals could be performed less frequently, 

because fewer ground disturbing actions implemented or areas where ground disturbing activity would be 

allowed would be more spatially restricted. Fewer cultural properties would be recorded, and the cultural 

resource database would not be increased as greatly as under Alternative 2. 

Under this alternative, impacts on cultural resources from livestock grazing management actions would be 

reduced from those under Alternative 1. There would probably be fewer direct ground disturbances and 

less impact on viewsheds, because maximum livestock production would not be pursued, and the number 

of range improvement projects would probably decrease accordingly. Impacts from livestock trampling, 

wallowing, rubbing, and scratching, as well as from associated soil erosion, would also be likely to 

decrease to a certain extent because of reductions in livestock populations. Reductions in allowable 

grazing in sensitive areas and in areas of conflicting activities could reduce the potential impacts on 

cultural properties in these areas. 

The potential impacts from oil and gas exploration and development would be greatly reduced under this 

alternative compared to the other alternatives, because less acreage would be open to oil and gas leasing 

and greater constraints would be placed on the leasable areas. It is anticipated that 5,209 oil and gas wells 

would be developed under this alternative, disturbing 31,139 acres of land. There would be a substantial 

increase in the area closed to leasing or with stipulations restricting development, surface-disturbing 

activities, or surface occupancy. Under this alternative, the Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff, as well as 

sites considered important to modern Native Americans, would directly and indirectly benefit from these 

Pinedale RMP 4-19 
Chapter 4—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

constraints. In particular, portions of the Ryegrass and Squaretop regions would directly benefit, with 

important protection afforded to the Native American traditional cultural property (TCP) found at Site 

48SU285, as well as to other sites with Native American importance that abound in the Ryegrass region. 

Restrictions on well pad density would reduce impacts on cultural resources in newly developed areas. 

Management actions under this alternative would place greater constraints on geophysical activities, and 

some areas would be entirely closed to geophysical exploration. Impacts on cultural resources from 

geophysical undertakings (primarily from vehicle travel, but also from illegal artifact collecting) would be 

reduced. 

Under this alternative, 723,200 acres would be made unavailable for oil and gas leasing, which would 

benefit cultural resources, because the major threats to these resources would be greatly reduced or 

eliminated. 

Under this alternative, there would be a lower potential for significant direct impacts on cultural resources 

from minerals actions because of the decreased likelihood of unmitigated effects on previously 

undocumented and unrecognized NRHP-eligible archeological sites. Further, the impacts on the viewshed 

of certain NRHP-eligible historic sites and sensitive Native American properties would likely be less 

significant under this alternative than under Alternative 1, and additional viewshed impacts would not 

occur. 

Fewer cultural resource inventories and site mitigations (e.g., excavations) would result from leasable 

minerals development and associated ground disturbances. Fewer cultural resource inventories would 

limit expansion of the cultural resource database, however, and understanding of the prehistory of the 

planning area would therefore be somewhat less under this alternative than under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Existing SRMAs would be managed for the protection of primitive recreational values and more limited 

access, and development activities and facilities construction would decrease. The related decrease in 

ground disturbances could potentially reduce the effects on cultural properties to a greater degree than 

would occur under Alternative 1. 

Soils management actions under this alternative would continue to minimize soil erosion, which would 

help to preserve cultural properties. Measures to protect soils from erosion would be more intensive in 

some areas of the planning area as compared to under Alternative 1. Restrictions on oil and gas and other 

development in particularly sensitive soils areas would reduce or eliminate ground disturbing activities, 

minimizing the potential for impacting unknown or buried cultural resources. 

Impacts on cultural resources from transportation, travel, and access actions would be substantially 

diminished from those under Alternatives 1 or 2, as a result of closing more land to OHV use and greater 

restrictions on OHV travel where it is allowed. Closing Sites 48SU285, 48SU2019, 48SU4100, 48LN300, 

and the Wardell Buffalo Trap to OHV use would protect cultural resources from the effects of erosion and 

would also prevent direct artifact displacement resulting from OHV use. Impacts on the Trapper’s Point 

area and on the sensitive cultural resources that abound in this area would decrease as a result of OHV 

closure and the corresponding decreased human presence. Under this alternative, opportunities to acquire 

access to isolated public land parcels would be pursued, which could slightly increase impacts on cultural 

resources if more roads were constructed or upgraded. Closing a number of sensitive cultural resource 

sites and trail areas to OHV use would have important direct and indirect impacts by restricting public 

access in these sensitive areas. Similarly, not establishing OHV Open areas has both direct and indirect 

effects, by reducing direct vehicular impacts, erosion, and the human-caused effects discussed above. 

Prescribed burning would be the preferred method of vegetation treatment, and more sensitive vegetation 

areas would be restricted from surface-disturbing activities. If prescribed fire were used instead of 

4-20 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

chemical treatments, certain cultural property types, such as historic and prehistoric wooden structures, 

aspen carvings, and rock art, would likely be impacted to a greater extent. Conversely, there would be a 

reduction in impacts associated with chemical treatments. Expanded avoidance of sensitive vegetation 

communities under this alternative would benefit cultural resources by reducing the potential for surfacedisturbing impacts. 

Under this alternative, the impacts on cultural resources from VRM actions would be less than under 

Alternative 1. Because VRM Class II areas would be larger (an additional 319,830 acres) under this 

alternative, less acreage would be subject to surface disturbance, which would thereby directly benefit any 

cultural properties in the area. VRM classifications would continue to be modified, as necessary, and 

impacts on cultural properties would vary accordingly. 

Under this alternative, the potential impacts on cultural resources from water quality and watershed 

management actions would be less than under Alternative 1. Most actions from this program would have 

effects on cultural resources. Impacts could be less significant under this alternative because riparian 

areas would be managed for wildlife and watershed protection rather than for the benefit of livestock. The 

result would be less livestock trampling and less erosion of cultural sites. Management actions that 

directly disturb the ground surface (such as construction of facilities) would decrease in flood plains and 

wetland/riparian areas under this alternative, which could decrease the direct impacts on cultural 

resources. 

Fewer wildland fires that could impact cultural resources would be suppressed under this alternative than 

under Alternative 1. An increased emphasis on wildland fire use for resource benefit (WFURB) would 

mean that more fires would be allowed to continue burning. This would potentially increase the damage 

to unknown cultural resources that are flammable, including historic and prehistoric wooden structures 

and aspen carvings, especially in areas where BLM lands abut the Bridger-Teton National Forest. There 

could also be increased damage to unknown rock art from extreme heat and smoke. Emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation actions would also increase potential impacts through additional surface 

disturbances. Short-term enhanced surface exposure caused by the burning of vegetation would be 

increased, and more nonflammable cultural resources would be exposed, which could then be identified 

and recorded. Soil erosion from loss of vegetation and consequent deterioration of cultural properties 

could also increase. 

Many management actions designed to protect wildlife and fish habitats would generally have impacts on 

cultural resources as well. In the Intensively Developed Fields, impacts would be similar to those 

described under Alternative 2. Additional sites would be recorded and evaluated, and additional sites 

would probably be disturbed. 

There would be a substantial increase in the area unavailable for leasing, with less direct and indirect 

impacts from far fewer surface disturbances. Unavailable for leasing or NSO restrictions could reduce the 

direct and indirect impacts on cultural resources from these constraints, because viewsheds would remain 

unspoiled or natural. In particular, portions of the South LaBarge, Miller Mountain, Ryegrass, and 

Squaretop regions would experience fewer impacts, with important protections afforded to the Native 

American TCP found at Site 48SU285 as well as to other sites with Native American importance that 

abound in these regions. 

Restrictions on surface disturbances under this alternative would increase in most wildlife habitat areas 

compared to those under Alternative 1. The unavailability of oil and gas leasing to protect wildlife 

migrations in the potential Trapper’s Point ACEC and the Upper Green River bottleneck area could 

reduce impacts on cultural resources by further reducing surface disturbances in these areas. Prohibiting 

permanent and high-profile structures (e.g., buildings, storage tanks, well pads, and wind turbines) within 

Pinedale RMP 4-21 
Chapter 4—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

a greater distance from active raptor nests could help protect cultural properties from visual impacts from 

these structures, as well as from the direct impacts from constructing these types of structures. Surfacedisturbing activities would also be further reduced to protect greater sage-grouse leks, which could also 

increase protections to cultural resources in these areas. 

In general, cultural resources would be more protected by management prescriptions for SD/MAs under 

this alternative. The Trapper’s Point area would be designated an ACEC that would include 9,540 acres 

and would receive far greater cultural resource protection under this alternative because there would be a 

nearly complete restriction on surface-disturbing activities, which would substantially reduce effects on 

the many and diverse cultural properties located in that area. Implementing management actions 

associated with the designation of the Ross Butte ACEC would help to preserve the abundant sensitive 

surficial (and buried) archeological resources in that area, which consist of many surface-occurring rock 

alignment sites, stone circles, cairns, and the Cora Butte Alignment site complex. Other management 

areas (MA) would focus on preservation rather than development, which would lessen impacts on cultural 

properties by limiting ground disturbing actions and human presence. Similarly, cultural resources would 

benefit from management prescriptions within the Miller Mountain MA that protect open space, natural 

landscape values, and prehistoric sites such as the National Register-quality Lanning Archeological Site 

(48LN2085). Under this alternative, there would be an increase in proactive cultural resource 

management initiatives. 

Establishing the Upper Green River ACEC with its emphasis on increasing recreational development 

would potentially have some impact on cultural resources associated with increased human presence, site 

disturbance, and erosion. 

Most surface-disturbing activities would be restricted within the Wind River Front MA (358,400 acres, 

including the U.S. Air Force Seismic Monitoring Station), and the protected area would be larger than 

that proposed under Alternative 1. In general, these actions would reduce potential direct impacts on 

cultural properties in the area. However, there would be fewer cultural resources identified, documented, 

and recorded in the area, as compared to under Alternative 1, because of the limitations this alternative 

would place on development activities and the consequent reduction in cultural resource inventories, 

unless this area was specifically targeted for proactive cultural resource investigations. 

4.3.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 4. 

Impacts from land tenure adjustment and wildland fire and fuels management would be similar to those 

under Alternative 3. 

More proactive management of cultural resources overall would provide for a more positive orientation 

toward Native American consultation and the types of sites they consider sacred or important, and it 

would also provide for more aggressive management of sites and locales whose importance is derived in 

part from retention of their undisturbed or natural settings. In general, there would be more preservation 

of cultural properties and their values, because more proactive efforts would be developed and 

implemented. The focus on avoidance and confidentiality of cultural resources would serve to further 

reduce impacts overall. Identification and inventory of priority areas before the proposal of other 

management actions would help to preemptively protect cultural resources from both direct and indirect 

impacts, and there would be more cultural properties added to the cultural resource database. 

Implementation of the cultural resource management program under this alternative would offer greater 

4-22 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

protection to cultural properties from impacts that result from other management programs, similar to 

under Alternative 3. Select, highly sensitive cultural properties would be better protected, because the 

cultural resource management program would place greater restrictions on other management actions. 

Under this alternative, the integrity of the setting of the Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff would be 

preserved through intensive viewshed analysis that would determine the necessary width and type of 

protective buffers required to avoid affecting the intact portions of the trails. Under this alternative, the 

impacts on the viewshed of the Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff would be less than under Alternatives 1 

and 2, but the impacts would be greater than under Alternative 3. 

A slightly higher number of cultural properties could be affected because of a slight projected increase in 

commercial logging activity. 

Lands and realty actions that disturb the ground surface or viewshed would impact cultural resources to a 

lesser extent than under Alternative 1. ROW avoidance areas would be expanded, which would 

potentially decrease impacts on cultural resources in the new ROW exclusion areas. 

Restrictions on the height and placement of communication towers could reduce direct and visual impacts 

on cultural properties. Further, most additional communication placements would be restricted to existing 

sites, which would also reduce potential impacts on cultural properties. 

Restrictions placed on wind energy development in certain sensitive areas would protect cultural 

properties from direct ground disturbance and visual effects related to this type of development, 

particularly from wind turbine placements. The potential would remain for significant impacts on 

previously undocumented and unrecognized cultural resources in culturally sensitive soils as a result of 

lands and realty actions, but they would be less likely to occur than under Alternative 1. 

The degree of potential impacts on cultural resources in the Intensively Developed Fields would be 

greatest with both direct and indirect impacts on cultural resources. Reducing and eliminating wildlife 

resource-driven timing limitations in this area could result in more soil disturbance and discovery and in 

possible damage to previously unrecorded sites. Construction during winter (or during periods of winterlike conditions) in sensitive cultural resource areas (e.g., the San Arcacio soils of the Jonah gas field, the 

Anticline, and the foothills/breaks of the Mesa and the eolian sediments of the Big Piney/LaBarge oil and 

gas field) could affect cultural resources, because it is virtually impossible to conduct any meaningful or 

professional cultural resource investigations with frozen ground or with snow cover. 

Cultural resources in Traditional Leasing Areas would be less protected than those in NSO or unavailable 

for leasing areas, but these resources would also be less directly threatened than those in the Intensively 

Developed Fields. Outside of specific cultural resource sites that merit or warrant special stipulations, 

such as site-specific NSO areas, there would be wildcat drilling and exploration activities in Traditional 

Leasing Areas, with new roads penetrating areas where access had previously been restricted (e.g., mileslong improved roads into areas where previously only two-track access existed). There could be indirect 

effects expected from this new access. Conversion of Traditional Leasing Areas into Intensively 

Developed Fields would make the management of intact viewsheds and natural settings more difficult. 

The potential for unexpected discoveries is greater in Traditional Leasing Areas because of the poor 

understanding of the dynamics of buried site potential and preservation in these largely unstudied areas. 

Areas made administratively unavailable for leasing or that have NSO or other stipulations restricting 

development or surface-disturbing activities would provide for far greater cultural resource protection. 

Viewsheds and natural settings would be maintainable in NSO/unavailable for leasing areas, protecting 

Pinedale RMP 4-23 
Chapter 4—Cultural Resources Final EIS 

sites whose importance derives from such conditions. Sites and locales considered sacred, sensitive, or 

important to modern Native Americans would receive greater protection. 

Under this alternative, management actions would place insufficient constraints on geophysical activities 

to protect cultural and Native American resources, especially in NSO/unavailable for leasing areas and 

the Trapper’s Point ACEC. Impacts on cultural resources from geophysical undertakings (primarily from 

vehicle travel, but also from illegal artifact collecting) would continue. 

Some SRMAs and other recreational areas would be managed for maximum recreational use, with a 

corresponding increase in development activities and construction of recreational facilities. The increase 

in ground disturbance resulting from these actions could potentially affect cultural properties to a greater 

degree than under Alternative 1. In particular, the proposed Boulder Lake SRMA could threaten abundant 

cultural resources, as has been identified in the Boulder Lake CRMP (USDI, BLM 1992). 

Impacts on cultural resources from OHV use within the planning area would be substantially less than 

under Alternative 1, as a result of more closures and restrictions on OHV travel (particularly within 

SD/MAs and other sensitive areas) and the limitation of OHV travel in the Desert General Use, Mt. Airy, 

Big Piney, and LaBarge OHV areas to existing roads and trails. Closing big game kill sites and Native 

American burial locales to OHV use would help protect these highly sensitive cultural locales without 

impacting other legitimate multiple uses. However, the level of protection under this alternative would not 

be as great overall as that proposed under Alternative 3. For example, Sites 48SU285, 48SU2019, and 

48LN300 would have OHV use limited to designated roads and trails, rather than being closed to OHV 

use (as is the case under Alternative 3), potentially leading to impacts from vehicle travel and human 

presence and activities. 

Not establishing OHV Open areas would have both direct and indirect effects, by reducing direct 

vehicular impacts, erosion, and the human-caused effects discussed above. 

Proposing common ROWs would be desirable for overall cultural resource management, as this would 

reduce surface impacts. Opportunities to acquire access to isolated public land parcels would be pursued, 

which could slightly increase impacts on cultural resources if more roads were constructed or upgraded. 

Under this alternative, the impact on cultural resources from VRM actions would be less than that under 

Alternative 1, especially for those cultural resources whose setting contributes to their significance. 

Because VRM Class II areas would be larger (an additional 166,090 acres), there would be less acreage 

subject to surface disturbance, thereby directly benefiting any cultural properties that derive their 

importance from natural settings and nonimpacted landscapes in the area. VRM classifications would 

continue to be modified in areas slated for development as appropriate, and impacts on cultural properties 

would vary accordingly. Cultural properties within VRM Class IV areas that derive their importance from 

natural settings and nonimpacted landscapes could have this component of site significance affected. 

Impacts on cultural resources from wildlife and fish management actions would be directly related to the 

management identified in the oil and gas management areas. In NSO/unavailable for leasing areas, there 

would be far greater protection of cultural resources, in that one primary agent of site impact would be 

greatly reduced or eliminated. There would be a commensurate loss of scientific data, because fewer 

inventories and site evaluations would be conducted, unless proactive inventory and site evaluation is 

performed. In the Traditional Leasing Areas, standard cultural resource inventory and evaluation 

techniques would be used to reduce or eliminate unmitigated effects on cultural resources. The 

Intensively Developed Fields would also rely on standard cultural resource inventory and evaluation 

techniques to reduce or eliminate cultural resource impacts. Past experience in the Jonah and Anticline 

Intensively Developed Fields indicates there could be impacts because of the nature of intensive 

4-24 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

development, with unexpected discoveries and increased human presence resulting in both direct and 

indirect effects on cultural resources. Most management actions designed to protect wildlife and fish 

habitats also have impacts on cultural resources. Cultural properties that derive their importance from 

natural settings and nonimpacted landscapes would have this component of site significance affected. 

ROW restrictions and making oil and gas leasing unavailable in order to protect wildlife migrations in the 

potential Trapper’s Point ACEC could greatly benefit cultural resources by further reducing surface 

disturbances in this area. 

The Trapper’s Point ACEC designation, which would contain 4,160 acres, would have many important 

cultural resource benefits. The core of the Trapper’s Point area, which contains National Register-eligible 

Site 48SU350, the Trapper’s Point Interpretive Site and Site 48SU1006, the Trappers Point (prehistoric) 

Site, the Green River Ranching TCP, and related sites, would be afforded maximum protection. 

Protection would also be afforded to numerous unrecorded but recognized sites within the ACEC. Site 

types protected include several rock alignments, stone circles, and other rock features known to be in the 

area. These site types are frequently considered sacred, important, or of interest to modern Native 

Americans. The ACEC designation would also protect the site setting of Site 48SU1006 and the 

Trapper’s Point (prehistoric) Site, which was formally nominated to the NRHP in 2007. The NRHP status 

of the Trapper’s Point Site is derived in part from the intact site setting, which is conducive to communal 

pronghorn hunting techniques. While there would be a continued impact on this ACEC area from illegal 

artifact collection, limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails in this area would reduce many direct 

and indirect impacts on the surface features that are abundant in the ACEC. Proactive cultural resource 

management initiatives would increase under this alternative. Those sites associated with Trapper’s Point 

but located on adjacent private land would not be protected. 

In general, cultural resources would receive more protection from the management prescriptions for 

SD/MAs (such as Miller Mountain) than these resources would under Alternative 1. Fewer ground 

disturbing activities would occur in most SD/MAs. The Ross Butte MA would receive greater cultural 

resource protection under this alternative because of NSO restrictions, which could significantly reduce 

direct effects on the cultural properties in the area. An “unavailable for leasing” decision for the southern 

Wind River Front MA along the Lander Trail would provide important protection for this contributing 

segment to the national historic trails system. 

Minerals leasing would be unavailable within the Wind River Front MA (201,240 acres). This action 

would have positive effects on cultural resources by significantly reducing the potential for direct impacts 

on cultural properties in the area. However, fewer cultural resources would be identified, documented, 

and recorded in the area, as compared to under Alternative 1, because of the limitations this alternative 

would place on development activities, and the consequent reduction in cultural resource inventories, 

unless this area was specifically targeted for proactive cultural resource investigations. 

Pinedale RMP 4-25 
Chapter 4—Forestry Final EIS 

4.4 FORESTRY 

This section presents potential impacts on forest management from management actions for other 

resource programs. Chapter 3 (Section 3.4) describes existing conditions concerning forestry. 

4.4.1 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• The long-term, sustained yield capacity of the forestlands is approximately 9 million board feet 

(MMBF) per decade, based on management restrictions. 

• The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) will provide guidance in managing designated oldgrowth stands, within both forested stands and woodlands. 

• Forest health, forest restoration, and hazardous fuels reduction objectives will be the major 

determining factors in forest management. 

• Approximately 6 MMBF of timber is being harvested per decade. There would be potential for 

higher demand if the infrastructure for harvesting were available to meet it. 

• The forested areas within the planning area have a fire regime of III, IV, and V. Fire Regime III is 

defined as mixed severity with a return interval of 35 to 100 years; the Douglas fir stands are 

primarily within this fire regime. The whitebark pine and limber pine association and the aspen 

forests/woodlands are in Fire Regime III. The lodgepole pine and spruce-fir stands are within Fire 

Regime IV, which is defined as an infrequent (return interval of 35 to 200+ years) stand 

replacement fire. Because of this, clear-cut units approximating natural disturbance patterns are 

acceptable within established Wyoming BLM guidelines. Primary management options will 

emphasize thinning, removal of insects and diseases affecting trees, and partial overstory 

removals, where appropriate. 

• Clearcut areas, which average between 10 and 25 acres, would be reforested with tree seedlings 

(either natural regeneration or planted if no natural establishment) within 5 to 7 years after 

harvest. No new permanent roads would be approved for timber harvest unless the roads were 

also needed for other resource management activities. Temporary roads would be revegetated 

within 3 to 5 years after closure. 

• Up to 700 acres of woodland (aspen, juniper, and limber pine) could be treated on an annual 

basis, which would assist in restoring woodlands to their historic place on the landscape and with 

rejuvenating aspen stands for wildlife, VRM, and the creation of natural fuel breaks. 

• 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, but would not exceed 25 wildings, 16,300 cubic feet (200 cords) of 

firewood, 350 Christmas trees, 700 cubic feet of posts and poles per year, and 1,250 cubic feet of 

personal use saw timber per year. No new road construction would take place to meet this 

demand. 

4-26 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Forestry 

4.4.2 Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources within the 

planning area, reviews of existing literature, and information from other agencies. Spatial analysis was 

conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 computer software. Effects are quantified where possible. In 

the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes described 

using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate. Forest inventory data were 

collected during Stage 2 inventories conducted in the early 1980s. 

4.4.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Impacts on forestry are not anticipated as a result of implementing management actions for the following 

resources and resource uses: paleontology and natural history, and transportation management. 

Management of cultural resources could potentially result in indirect effects on the forest management 

program by restricting forest management activities in areas where there are substantial cultural resources 

requiring protection. 

Forest management techniques, including logging, would contribute to forest health by removing dead 

and dying trees, reducing the number of diseased trees and the spread of insects, and reducing the 

likelihood of large wildland fires. The sale of forest products would also provide economic benefits to 

nearby communities. 

Consolidation of land ownership would have a long-term effect on forest resources through facilitation of 

management actions within blocks of forestland. If implemented, forest management activities would not 

be constrained by ownership boundaries. 

Easement acquisition and land adjustments would help enhance access and would aid in implementing 

forest management actions. Objectives for acquiring or maintaining access to forested areas would keep 

these areas open to active forest management. 

Grazing and browsing by both livestock and large ungulate wildlife could affect forest management 

actions. The regeneration of aspen and other deciduous trees and shrubs in forested, woodland, and 

riparian areas could be reduced by livestock and wildlife gazing and browsing. Fluid mineral 

development could impact forestry. Most of this development would take place outside forest and 

woodland areas. However, the forested and woodland areas along the Wyoming Range contain active 

natural gas wells and have the potential for increased production. Portions of the Wyoming Range 

forest/woodland area have a high potential for coalbed natural gas (CBNG) development (ENSR and 

Booz Allen Hamilton 2003). Impacts from mineral resource development on forest management could 

include the removal of forest cover and the development of localized barriers or impediments to travel 

that could limit access to potential harvest areas. These areas would be taken out of production for the life 

of the well or mineral project. These impacts would be about the same for leasable, locatable, and salable 

minerals, although mineral development is primarily situated in nonforested to lightly forested areas of 

the planning area. 

The extension of new access roads within forested/woodland areas could allow for better access to 

resources, which could impact timber sales. Expanded road access could also mean easier access for 

wood cutters and other users of forest products, thereby increasing the demand for forest products. 

Pinedale RMP 4-27 
Chapter 4—Forestry Final EIS 

The presence of recreational use areas such as campgrounds within forested areas would preclude timber 

harvest, thereby reducing the range of forest management options available to maintain forest health and 

public safety. 

Soil type and condition could affect forest management. Timber harvest could be restricted in areas with 

unstable soils or particularly steep terrain. 

VRM Class II management objectives require that the visual resource contained within these forested 

areas be maintained or that changes to the visual resource not be noticeable to the casual observer. VRM 

constraints would restrict timber harvests in these areas. Other forested areas within the planning area 

would be managed as VRM Class III, which would impose few restrictions on forest management 

actions. 

In areas of high water resource values, timber harvesting would be limited. Modification of timber sales, 

stand improvement, or forest health projects would be necessary in these areas. 

Management of Special Status Plant Species and communities could preclude timber harvest and fuel 

reduction projects in places where such species occur. This would be a minor impact, particularly 

considering that most of the Special Status Plant Species in the planning area are found in desert habitats. 

Fire management can affect forestry activities. Fuel treatment projects may be done in forested areas to 

reduce the potential hazard of fire by reducing the fuel source. These projects can reduce the amount of 

woody material on the ground and also alter the structure of both the understory and overstory of trees, 

changing the composition and structure of the stand. 

WFURB could also affect forestry. In areas where WFURB is allowed, wildland fire could alter the stand 

composition, structure, and function. Wildland fire could change the seral state of the forest or woodland. 

Potential commercial material could be burned and therefore no longer be salvageable. 

The management of sensitive, threatened, and endangered species and their habitats would impact 

forestry activities. This management would include precluding timber harvest and forest health treatments 

in areas where habitat for these species, such as the lynx, is located. 

SD/MA management would limit forest treatments within WSAs and ACECs. Restrictions would include 

permitting no timber harvest or mechanical treatments within the WSA and restricting these activities in 

ACECs. 

4.4.4 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 1. 

Fire management could affect forestry activities under this alternative. The fire management plan calls for 

a response commensurate with the resource values at risk. In areas where the forest/woodland vegetation 

has a low resource value, the response could be to allow larger acreages to be burned. WFURB (also 

called prescribed fire or unplanned ignition) would also be allowed, which could impact the forest and 

woodlands stands by allowing fire to play its role in the ecosystem and return the forested lands to an 

earlier seral or successional state. 

4-28 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Forestry 

4.4.5 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 2. 

Because of the emphasis on commercial productivity, more commercial timber would be harvested and 

forest health actions would be directed toward sustaining a greater yield of forest products. 

Aspen stands would be managed for early seral aspen communities to maximize commodity benefits, 

which would facilitate the management of aspen as a commodity. 

Fire management would affect forestry activities under this alternative. Fuel treatments would be focused 

on the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas, including the industrial interface, and on meeting specific 

nonforestry-related objectives such as fuels reduction and habitat management. Using wildland fire to 

restore forest stands would not be an option. 

Fewer acres of land designated as ACECs would result in fewer acres of land with added restrictions on 

forest management practices. Elimination of the Beaver Creek ACEC (3,590 acres) would allow forest 

management practices on steeper slopes and in areas closer than 1,000 feet from streams, or on slopes in 

excess of 25%. Elimination of the Rock Creek ACEC would have no impact on forestry practices as the 

Lake Mountain WSA designation would remain. 

4.4.6 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 3. 

Fire management would affect forestry under this alternative. WFURB would be a management tool to 

reintroduce natural fire back into the ecosystem. This would allow the use of fire to revitalize unhealthy 

forest in such areas as decadent forest stands and stands infested with insects or disease, and to control 

conifer encroachment in aspen stands. 

Aspen stands would be aggressively managed to bring them within their historic range of variability, 

increasing stand sizes and the number of stands throughout the area. Increases in the number and size of 

aspen stands would also result in generally younger stands and more age diversity among stands. 

Under this alternative, oil, gas, and mineral development would have the least impact on forestry. 

Minimizing road development would leave more areas of the analysis area unroaded and inaccessible to 

commercial and noncommercial forest products users. 

Forestlands within SD/MAs would be increased by 3,550 acres. This could result in SD/MA-related 

restrictions on timber harvest and forest treatments over a larger area. 

4.4.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 4. 

Aspen stands would be aggressively managed to bring them within their historic range of variability. 

Pinedale RMP 4-29 
Chapter 4—Forestry Final EIS 

Oil, gas, and mineral development under this alternative could impact forestry. The level of proposed 

development would create more roads into the forest stands and woodlands, increasing the accessibility of 

these areas to commercial and noncommercial forest products users. 

The use of WFURB in fire management would re-introduce wildland fire into forest stands and 

woodlands of the analysis area. This would allow fire to be a component in restoring the composition, 

structure, and function of forests and woodlands to presuppression conditions. 

Fire management would also affect forestry by emphasizing the use of mechanical, chemical, and 

prescribed fire treatments to restore the ecosystem to its presuppression composition, structure, and 

function, and also by reducing hazardous fuel buildups. 

Under this alternative, the Miller Mountain and Wind River Front MAs would be open to forest 

management consistent with the HFRA, which would allow for more proactive management of forest 

resources and restoration of forested areas to old-growth composition, structure, and function. It would 

also address ecosystem health. 

4-30 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Lands & Realty 

4.5 LANDS AND REALTY 

This section describes potential impacts on lands and realty management from management actions for 

other resource programs. Lands and realty management includes management of ROWs and leases and 

permits, administration of withdrawals, and land tenure adjustments. Chapter 3 (Section 3.5) describes 

existing conditions concerning lands and realty. 

The lands and realty program is a support program rather than an environmental component. The program 

responds to requests for authorizations, permits, leases, and land tenure adjustments from other programs 

or outside entities. The following discussion of the effects on lands and realty focuses on the constraints 

and opportunities for ROW authorizations (e.g., for pipelines, power lines, transmission lines, roads, and 

communication sites). Specifically, this analysis will determine whether the implementation of 

management actions for other resource programs influences or modifies the location, size, or design of a 

given ROW proposal or, in some cases, precludes approval of the proposal. Such impacts would primarily 

occur from the implementation of management actions designed to protect natural resources and limit 

impacts on those resources from surface-disturbing activities. Therefore, the type and degree of 

limitations and restrictions placed on ROW proposals depend on the location of sensitive or high-value 

resources and the potential for environmental impacts on those resources. Land use restrictions that result 

in the relocation or redesign of proposed ROWs would increase management efforts and costs related to 

proposals submitted by ROW applicants, which are administered by the lands and realty program. This 

impact would be further increased if relocation resulted in longer linear routes or placement of ROWs in 

areas that are difficult to develop. If avoidance of sensitive resources is not possible, other mitigation 

measures would be required, such as application of height and color specifications that serve to redesign 

ROWs to meet the goals and objectives for other resources. 

4.5.1 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• ROWs for energy-related facilities (e.g., roads, pipelines) are anticipated to increase. 

• Interest in community expansion and other land tenure adjustments is anticipated to increase 

during the planning period. 

• Before any disposals are made, lands will be examined for the presence of high-value resources. 

Lands containing high-value resources will not be disposed of, or the disposal would allow for 

those resources to be preserved. 

• The installation of power lines, telephone lines, fiber-optic cable, and communication sites is 

anticipated to increase. 

• Existing withdrawals would continue and would be reviewed to determine the need for 

continuation, modification, revocation, or termination. 

• The effects of designation and development of transportation and utility ROW corridors would be 

mitigated on a case-by-case basis. 

• Prior to any potential land disposal, the mineral development potential would be evaluated 

according to sections 206 and 209 of FLPMA. 

Pinedale RMP 4-31 
Chapter 4—Lands & Realty Final EIS 

4.5.2 Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources within the 

planning area, reviews of existing literature, and information provided by other agencies. Spatial analysis 

was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 computer software. Effects are quantified where 

possible. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes 

described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate. 

4.5.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Impact on the lands and realty program are not anticipated as a result of implementing management 

actions for the following resources and resource uses: forest management and fire and fuels management. 

Air quality management would affect how lands and realty authorizations are stipulated to alleviate air 

quality impacts. As an example, stipulations could be placed on pipeline or road ROWs that call for dust 

suppressants. The requirement to use dust suppressants could increase construction costs. Formal 

consultation would be required for any project-related activity (dust suppression) that would cause a 

depletion of the Colorado River system. 

Implementing protective measures for cultural and paleontological resources could require avoidance and 

other mitigation measures for ROWs proposed near these resources. These measures could result in the 

relocation or redesign of proposed ROWs. Because known cultural and paleontological resources occur 

throughout the field office, and because it is likely that additional cultural and paleontological resources 

will be discovered in the future, impacts could be substantial and occur in varying degrees throughout the 

field office. 

Development of ROWs in forested areas would cause habitat fragmentation and visual impacts. ROW 

widths would be up to 150 feet for major power lines. Trees would not be reclaimed in ROW corridors, 

resulting in permanent impacts on wildlife habitat and visual resources. 

Land tenure adjustments would serve to benefit the overall management of the lands and realty program 

and to improve and protect future management of all resources and associated resource values. If impacts 

occurred that were not beneficial or that could not be mitigated appropriately, a land tenure adjustment 

would not be considered. Certain lands would not be considered for disposal unless exchanged with lands 

of equal or greater value, including functional resource value or monetary value. This would include lands 

with aquatic resources and wetland/riparian habitat, because of their limited presence in the planning area. 

Avoiding land exchanges of this type would be beneficial to the resource. Through the lands and realty 

program, lands within the planning area would be acquired or disposed of through exchange or sale, or 

through Recreation and Public Purpose Act of 1926 (R&PP) patents, for the purposes of community 

expansion, consolidation of public lands, acquisition of important resources, or accommodation of public 

and private needs. These actions would help to facilitate the location of ROWs by providing for a more 

contiguous public land base and by encouraging such developments near communities. 

Transportation planning and access needs would impact lands and realty management by increasing the 

number of ROWs issued per year to provide reasonable access to state and privately held lands. 

Minimal impacts on lands and realty would be anticipated as a result of implementing management 

actions for livestock grazing. Livestock grazing activities would cause short-term impacts on reclamation 

efforts conducted under lands and realty management, because the areas reclaimed are often used by 

livestock as forage and travel corridors. The use of best management practices (BMP) to meet the 

4-32 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Lands & Realty 

Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health (USDI, BLM 1997) criteria would minimize any long-term 

effects. 

The minerals program would have a very large impact on lands and realty. Impacts would include but not 

be limited to ROWs required for road systems and transportation systems for natural gas and other 

produced liquids, as well as for oil and gas facilities. In addition, areas that are closed to mineral leasing, 

have NSO stipulations, or are otherwise identified as unsuitable for surface disturbance or occupancy 

would be managed as ROW avoidance or exclusion areas. Minerals management actions, because they 

are so numerous in specific parts of the planning area, would potentially affect the location of subsequent 

ROWs. Existing leases and minerals activity and facilities could preclude the ability to sell or exchange 

public land parcels. The duration of the impact would be directly related to the level of potential mineral 

production on these parcels. 

Recreation-related demands on public lands could increase the need for land exchanges to consolidate 

public land ownership. In addition, the presence of recreational sites would preclude the location of 

certain ROWs, thereby impacting the lands and realty program. Overall, there would be minimal impacts 

on lands and realty from recreation management. 

Implementing management actions for vegetation and soil could place land use restrictions on some areas. 

Achieving a high level of species diversity, meeting the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health for 

vegetation, and preventing or minimizing soil erosion could result in the relocation or redesign of ROWs. 

These potential impacts would be small scale and localized in sensitive vegetation and soil areas. 

Managing the field office to meet VRM objectives could affect the location, route, height, and color of 

proposed ROWs and associated facilities. Additional effort would be required to design projects to meet 

the objectives of the specific VRM class designation of an area in which a ROW is proposed. Because 

ROWs would generally be compatible with VRM Class IV objectives, this classification would allow 

increased opportunities for ROW authorizations. This is also true for VRM Class III objectives; however, 

some additional project planning may be necessary within VRM Class III areas to ensure that the 

landscape is partially retained. Any ROWs proposed in VRM Class II areas would be subject to intensive 

mitigation and, in some cases, could be precluded. 

Management of fish and wildlife habitat and Special Status Species would impact uses administered by 

the lands and realty program through the implementation of mitigation measures designed to protect 

species and wildlife habitat. Implementing species-specific conservation measures for BLM-Sensitive 

plant and animal species and prohibiting actions that affect threatened or endangered species could result 

in the relocation of proposed ROWs to avoid these habitat areas. 

Potential impacts from all SD/MAs, whether existing or proposed, would usually be minimal and would 

vary by the management prescriptions associated with each designated SD/MA. Intensive management of 

SD/MAs would potentially affect the lands and realty program by altering ROW locations. WSAs would 

cause the greatest restriction on lands and realty management actions, while the other SD/MAs would 

place fewer restrictions on such actions. 

4.5.4 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 1. 

Pinedale RMP 4-33 
Chapter 4—Lands & Realty Final EIS 

There would be impacts from minerals management as a result of the RFD of 7,192 wells. The demands 

for ROW authorizations for oil and gas facilities, including but not limited to pipelines and roads, would 

impact lands and realty management. 

VRM classifications would affect the location of new ROWs and facilities. ROW projects would be 

designed to meet the objectives of the VRM class established for the project area. Most ROWs and 

facilities would be compatible with VRM Class III (187,070 acres) and VRM Class IV (641,140 acres). In 

VRM Class I (21,290 acres) and VRM Class II (73,430 acres) areas, ROW actions would be limited and 

would require mitigation to ensure that the project or surface disturbance did not attract the attention of 

the casual observer (Map 2-14). 

Mitigation measures to protect wildlife resources, threatened and endangered (T&E) species, and habitats 

would impact the potential disposal of lands. Seasonal closures would result in short-term impacts on 

lands and realty actions in sensitive areas such as the big game crucial winter range (approximately 

501,620 acres) and greater sage-grouse nesting habitat (approximately 392,880 acres). Year-round 

restrictions and no surface-disturbing activities in areas such as sensitive aquatic and critical habitats 

would restrict the location of ROWs and land disposal actions over the long term. Areas with NSO 

restrictions would not meet the disposal criteria. 

Sensitive wildlife habitats, such as white-tailed prairie dog towns, would be avoided to the extent 

possible, thereby limiting placement of ROWs and facilities. However, ROW avoidance and exclusion 

areas would be considered on a case-by-case basis, based on their level of sensitivity. 

ACECs would be managed as ROW avoidance or exclusion areas. Geophysical exploration would be 

limited to portable methods and/or existing roads and trails. Both of these actions could cause the lands 

and realty program to reroute ROWs, and these actions would also limit the effectiveness of geophysical 

exploration. 

4.5.5 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 2. 

Cultural resource management would prohibit lands and realty actions on communal big game kill sites, 

Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, and Native American burial locales and TCP sites. Lands 

actions would be prohibited or would require special mitigation measures within one-quarter mile or the 

visual horizon (whichever is nearer) of the Lander Trail and the Sublette Cutoff Trail and also within onequarter mile of contributing segments of these trails. This could result in the rerouting of ROWs and in 

additional costs to ROW proponents and could also result in prohibiting other lands and realty 

authorizations. Under Alternative 1, these restrictions do not occur; therefore, this alternative would be 

more restrictive and have more impact on the lands and realty program. 

Under this alternative, land tenure adjustments would be considered on a case-by-case basis, according to 

the criteria in Appendix 13. This action would increase the ability to exchange land, thereby increasing 

the potential for community and economic expansion. This action might also increase the potential for 

sale or exchange of isolated tracts of land, thereby facilitating management of the lands and realty 

program. Proposals for water disposal pits would also be considered on a case-by-case basis, whereas 

under Alternative 1, no water disposal would be authorized. This would affect the number and type of 

ROW applications. 

4-34 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Lands & Realty 

Impacts resulting from minerals management would be more extensive and would impact a larger portion 

of the planning area than under Alternative 1, because under this alternative, there would be both fewer 

restrictions on use and increased development opportunities (RFD of 7,804 wells). This alternative would 

provide the greatest opportunity for mineral development and production, allowing more areas to be open 

to all types of mineral development, which would increase land use. This would in turn impact lands and 

realty management through the increased demand for ROW authorizations. 

Impacts from VRM would be similar to those under Alternative 1, except approximately 13,720 more 

acres would be designated as VRM Class II, which would increase the level of restrictions designed to 

protect visual resources and subsequently would decrease opportunities for ROW authorizations. 

Impacts resulting from wildlife and fisheries management would be more restrictive on lands and realty 

programs. For greater sage-grouse, big game, sensitive species, and raptors in Intensively Developed 

Fields, Traditional Leasing Areas, and Unavailable Areas, the restrictions placed on development would 

result in more impacts and restrictions to lands and realty programs. The placement of ROWs, as well as 

the windows of opportunity for constructing them, could be affected by both seasonal restrictions and the 

presence of NSO areas. 

Surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited at the Trapper’s Point ACEC. All new ROWs would 

need to be routed around the ACEC. Routing for all new ROWs would need to go to the north side of the 

highway. 

4.5.6 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 3. 

Cultural resource management, as under Alternative 2, would prohibit lands actions on communal big 

game kill sites, Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, and Native American burial locales and TCP 

sites. Lands actions would be prohibited or would require special mitigation measures within 1 mile or the 

visual horizon (whichever is nearer) of the Lander Trail and the Sublette Cutoff Trail and also within 1 

mile of contributing segments of these trails. This is an additional three-quarter mile area over that 

proposed under Alternative 2, and these restrictions could result in the rerouting of ROWs and in 

additional costs to ROW proponents and could also result in prohibiting other lands and realty 

authorizations. Under Alternative 1, these restrictions would not occur, and under Alternative 2, the 

restriction would be for one-quarter mile; thus, this alternative would be more restrictive and would 

therefore have more impact on the lands and realty program. 

Under this alternative, only 790 acres of land would be considered for disposal through sale or exchange 

(Appendix 14), and 65,750 acres would be proposed for withdrawal (Table 2-26, p. 2-159; Map 2-23 and 

Map 2-25). These two actions would decrease the ability to sell land, thereby decreasing the potential for 

community and economic expansion. No lands would be suitable for Desert Land Entry (DLE). This 

action would not have much effect, because no DLEs have been authorized in the PFO for the past 20 to 

30 years. Under this alternative, communication sites and alternative energy development would be 

authorized with more stipulations in place than under Alternatives 1 or 2. This could raise the cost for any 

proponents of either action. The additional stipulations would place more emphasis on resources such as 

wildlife and VRM. 

Impacts resulting from minerals management would be less extensive and would impact a smaller portion 

of the planning area than under Alternative 1, because under this alternative, there would be both 

Pinedale RMP 4-35 
Chapter 4—Lands & Realty Final EIS 

increased restrictions on use and decreased opportunities for development. This alternative would provide 

the least opportunity for mineral development and production (RFD of 5,209 wells), thereby decreasing 

land use. This would in turn impact lands and realty management through the decreased demand for 

ROW authorizations. 

The increase of 319,830 acres for VRM Class II impacts from visual resource management actions would 

increase the level of restrictions designed to protect visual resources and would subsequently decrease 

opportunities for ROW authorizations. 

Impacts resulting from wildlife and fisheries management would be greater than under Alternative 1 

because of an increased emphasis on habitat enhancement and protection, and because of additional 

restrictions on surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities. For greater sage-grouse, big game, 

sensitive species, and raptors in Intensively Developed Fields, Traditional Leasing Areas, and 

Unavailable Areas, the restrictions placed on development would result in more impacts on and 

restrictions to lands and realty. The placement of ROWs, as well as the windows of construction 

opportunity for building pipelines, roads, and so forth, could be affected by both seasonal restrictions and 

the presence of NSO areas. These restrictions would also affect structure types, heights, and locations. 

This would either decrease opportunities for ROW authorizations or increase the stipulations placed on 

ROW authorizations, which could increase cost to the proponents of these actions. 

Under this alternative, SD/MAs would restrict opportunities for development and associated ROWs. 

There would be nine ACECs under this alternative. The emphasis of the ACECs would be to protect 

natural resources. Along with that emphasis, there would be more restrictions on ROWs. The Rock Creek 

ACEC would be a ROW exclusion area. In the Beaver Creek ACEC, all new roads and ROWs would be 

required to follow existing ROW alignments. The Trapper Point and New Fork Potholes ACECs would 

be closed to all surface-disturbing activities except those activities that benefit the natural resources, so 

these would also be ROW exclusion areas for all types of commercial activity. The Upper Green River 

ACEC would require the closure of the same length of road as is built, so that there is no net gain in road 

mileage. The White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC would have intensive management for surface-disturbing 

activities and would also have more mitigation of and stipulations on all ROWs. The Ross Butte ACEC 

would prohibit new communication sites and would require new ROWs to follow existing disturbances. 

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Ponds ACEC would require proposed projects to be designed to 

maintain the integrity of big game migration routes. This would not affect underground ROWs, but it 

could have a large impact on aboveground ROWs. The East Fork River Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) 

Unit would be an exclusion area for ROWs. The Green River WSR Unit would be an avoidance area for 

ROWs; in other words, a ROW could go through this ACEC but only with intensive management in the 

form of mitigation and stipulations placed on the grant. Power projects would be prohibited immediately 

next to the WSR segment. Other ROWs within the WSR unit would be avoided. In addition, there would 

be consideration given to the exchange of state lands in SD/MAs such as WSAs and ACECs, which could 

further impact the disposal of lands over the long term by further expansion and permanent establishment 

of SD/MAs. However, these exchanges could also benefit the lands and realty program by consolidating 

appropriate lands to enhance the value of lands within the planning area. 

4.5.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 4. 

As under Alternatives 2 and 3, under this alternative, cultural resource management would prohibit lands 

actions on communal big game kill sites, Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, and Native 

4-36 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Lands & Realty 

American burial locales and TCP sites. Also, lands actions would be prohibited or would require special 

mitigation measures within either one-quarter mile or the visual horizon (whichever is nearer) of the 

Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails and also within one-quarter mile of contributing segments of these 

trails, except for linear crossings. This could result in the rerouting of ROWs and in additional costs to 

ROW proponents and also in prohibiting other lands and realty authorizations. Under Alternative 1, these 

restrictions would not occur; under Alternative 2, the restriction would be for one-quarter mile; under 

Alternative 3, the restriction would be for 3 miles. Thus, this alternative would be between Alternatives 2 

and 3, as far as restricting and impacting the lands and realty program. The rerouting of a ROW could 

cause additional surface disturbance if it results in longer routes. 

Under this alternative, only 790 acres of land would be considered for disposal through sale or exchange 

(Appendix 14), and 13,770 acres would be proposed for withdrawal (Table 2-26, p. 2-159; Map 2-31 and 

Map 2-34). These two actions would decrease the ability to sell land, thereby decreasing the potential for 

community and economic expansion, as compared to under Alternative 1. No lands would be suitable for 

DLE. This action would not have much of an effect, since no DLEs have been authorized in the PFO in 

the past 20–30 years. Communication sites and alternative energy development would be authorized with 

more stipulations in place than under Alternative 1. This could raise the cost for any proponents of either 

action. The additional stipulations would place more emphasis on resources such as wildlife and VRM. 

Impacts resulting from minerals management would be less extensive and would impact a smaller portion 

of the planning area than under Alternative 1, because under this alternative there would be both 

increased restrictions on use and decreased opportunities for development. This alternative would provide 

slightly fewer opportunities for mineral development and production (RFD of 7,136 wells), thereby 

decreasing land use. This would in turn impact lands and realty management by decreasing the demand 

for ROW authorizations. 

Under this alternative, impacts from VRM actions would be similar to those under Alternative 1, except 

that 166,090 more acres would be designated as VRM Class II, which would increase the level of 

restrictions designed to protect visual resources and subsequently decrease opportunities for ROW 

authorizations.

Under this alternative, impacts from wildlife and fisheries management would be greater than under 

Alternative 1 because of an increased emphasis on habitat enhancement and protection and additional 

restrictions on surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities. For greater sage-grouse, big game, 

sensitive species, and raptors in Intensively Developed Fields, Traditional Leasing Areas, and 

Unavailable Areas, the restrictions placed on development would result in more impacts and restrictions 

to lands and realty. The placement of ROWs, as well as the windows of construction opportunity for 

building pipelines, roads, and so forth could be affected by both seasonal restrictions and the presence of 

NSO areas. These restrictions would also impact structure types, heights, and locations. This would either 

decrease opportunities for ROW authorizations or increase the stipulations placed on ROW 

authorizations, which could increase cost to the proponents of these actions. 

SD/MAs would restrict development opportunities and associated ROWs. There would be four ACECs 

under this alternative. The emphasis of the ACECs would be to protect natural resources. Along with that 

emphasis, there would be more restrictions on ROWs. The Rock Creek ACEC would be a ROW 

exclusion area. In the Beaver Creek ACEC, all new roads and ROWs would be required to follow existing 

ROW alignments. The Trapper’s Point and New Fork Potholes ACECs would be closed to all surfacedisturbing activities except those activities that benefit the natural resources, so these would also be ROW 

exclusion areas for all types of commercial activity. The Ross Butte MA would prohibit new 

communication sites and would require new ROWs to follow existing disturbance. The East Fork River 

WSR Unit would be an exclusion area for ROWs. The Green River WSR Unit would be an avoidance 

Pinedale RMP 4-37 
Chapter 4—Lands & Realty Final EIS 

area for ROWs; in other words, a ROW could go through this ACEC but only with intensive management 

in the form of mitigation and stipulations placed on the grant. In addition, there would be consideration 

given to the exchange of state lands in SD/MAs such as WSAs and ACECs, which could further impact 

the disposal of lands over the long term by expanding and permanently establishing the SD/MA areas 

further. However, these exchanges could also benefit the lands and realty program by consolidating 

appropriate lands to enhance the value of lands within the planning area. 

4-38 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing 

4.6 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

This section presents potential impacts on livestock grazing from management actions for other resource 

programs. Chapter 3 (Section 3.6) describes existing conditions concerning livestock grazing. 

4.6.1 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Livestock grazing would occur throughout most or all of the planning area. 

• Livestock grazing would be managed to meet the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health 

(USDI, BLM 1997). 

• The type of grazing use would remain about the same. 

• Range improvement projects would continue to be used to achieve rangeland management goals. 

• Increasing oil and gas development may provide funding to mitigate impacts on livestock 

grazing. 

• Range improvements would include the following types of projects: spring/seep development and 

protection, reservoirs and pits, wells, new or modified fencing, vegetation treatments, and 

pipelines. 

• Reclamation efforts would be designed to provide sufficient livestock forage that maintains or 

exceeds current allocations. Livestock grazing stocking rates for the allotment could increase if 

warranted by increased forage and water availability. 

• Large predators (gray wolf, grizzly bear) would increase their range and would impact livestock 

grazing on BLM allotments. 

• Any changes in grazing management, including changes in grazing preference, would be based 

on rangeland monitoring and documented field observations, in accordance with grazing 

regulations (43 CFR §4110.3). 

• Population increases in the Upper Green River Valley would result in additional subdivision of 

ranchlands. 

• Population increases in the Upper Green River Valley would result in increased recreational use 

within grazing allotments. 

• Livestock grazing is not considered a surface-disturbing activity. 

4.6.2 Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of rangeland resources 

within the planning area, existing rangeland health and range monitoring data, reviews of existing 

literature, and information provided by other agencies. Spatial analysis was conducted using ESRI’s 

ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 computer software. Effects are quantified where possible. In the absence of 

Pinedale RMP 4-39 
Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes described using ranges of 

potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate. 

4.6.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Environmental impacts associated with the alternatives would be caused by management activities within 

the planning area. Impacts on livestock grazing activities would generally be the result of activities 

affecting forage levels within grazing allotments. Other impacts could be those that affect actual grazing 

operations, such as impediments to allotment access and water access. 

In general, management actions associated with cultural and paleontological resources affect relatively 

small, localized areas and would not have a measurable effect on livestock forage. 

Increased understory production would occur as a result of timber harvest, by opening the forest canopy 

and increasing sunlight penetration to herbaceous vegetation, which would effectively increase available 

forage for livestock. Timber harvest activities, such as sawing, skidding, and road building, would 

displace livestock and remove forage. Most roads and skid trails would be reclaimed, thereby 

reestablishing forage. However, a few roads would remain following logging activities, which would 

cause a minimal permanent loss of forage, along with better access for livestock within an allotment. 

These impacts would be minor and localized because of the limited amount of forested area overall. 

Disturbance of 3.6 acres per mile of pipeline construction would occur, assuming the ROW width is 30 

feet. Pipeline construction generally would result in a temporary loss of forage, because reclamation 

would restore herbaceous vegetation within 2 to 5 years following construction activities. 

Loss of AUMs would occur if large blocks of land were disposed of or if land exchanges resulted in 

acquisition of lands distant from affected allotments. Most land disposals and land exchanges would be 

on isolated tracts. Large acreages of land disposal or exchange are not anticipated. This would have only a 

minor impact on livestock grazing operations. 

Impacts from livestock grazing would primarily be related to annual forage removal by grazing livestock. 

Pasture and herd rotational grazing and other BMPs are intended to improve livestock dispersal 

throughout the rangelands; to control the season, duration, and intensity of grazing; and to achieve range 

condition objectives. The intent of any applied practices and projects would be to improve the condition 

(quality or quantity) of the forage, thereby enhancing grazing management flexibility. Indirect effects of 

using grazing BMPs would include increased conception rates among livestock, higher weaning weights, 

lower animal veterinary costs, and reduced stress on livestock. These practices could also increase costs 

to the livestock operator associated with increased livestock herding and maintenance of improvements. 

Applying appropriate guidelines to grazing operations to comply with the Wyoming Standards for 

Rangeland Health would affect livestock operators on those allotments for which there is a documented 

determination of not meeting the Standards for reasons attributable to grazing. Such adjustments could 

include season-of-use changes, changes in stocking rates, implementation of improved grazing 

management practices (e.g., growing season deferment, riparian pastures, and exclosures), forage 

utilization limits, and conversions in kind or type of livestock. Such management changes could typically 

result in increased operating costs to the livestock operator. Meeting the Standards could result in 

increased water availability and forage production, which would benefit livestock through improved 

animal distribution, more animals gaining weight, and increased conception rates. 

4-40 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing 

Range improvements would enable the implementation of grazing plans, which would generally improve 

the distribution of livestock and achievement of long-term livestock and resource management goals. 

Disturbances related to oil and gas drilling and related operations could result in short-term forage loss. 

Disturbed areas would undergo reclamation efforts as soon as practical following the disturbance. 

Reclamation practices would be designed to restore any loss of forage. Typically, livestock concentrate on 

newly reclaimed areas and forage utilization decreases on the native rangeland. Temporary adjustments of 

active use or temporary closures may be warranted when the realization of reclamation objectives is slow. 

The construction and improvement of roads would provide livestock operators with better access to their 

livestock and would enhance their ability to maintain improvements. Dust from these roads would coat 

forage adjacent to the roads, which would reduce the palatability of the forage. In addition, airborne dust 

could cause respiratory problems for nearby livestock. During the construction of pipelines, livestock 

could possibly fall into construction trenches, causing injury or death. If water quality were sufficient, 

produced water from oil and gas activities could be made available for livestock use in some areas, 

consistent with the State of Wyoming’s objective to utilize produced water for livestock, wildlife, and 

other uses. 

Oil and gas development activities, including the construction of well pads, pipelines, facilities, and 

transportation systems, could result in significant disturbance to soils and vegetation. The potential for 

considerable acres of vegetation disturbance could result in a long-term loss of significant amounts of 

available forage in the absence of adequate reclamation, especially where surface well spacing exceeds 16 

wells per section. Reclamation efforts associated with projects of this magnitude could require more than 

10 years to achieve success. Even with successful reclamation, there could be permanent loss of available 

forage in the form of limited or lost access to grazing areas because of the development of roads and 

industrial facilities. This could result in temporary or long-term closure of affected allotments or in 

significant reductions in grazing preference in developing or producing gas fields. 

Geophysical exploration activities would disturb only a minimal amount of livestock forage. 

Mining of other leasable, salable, and locatable minerals could result in loss soil and vegetation, which 

could result in a loss of forage. Reclamation of these lands would return the grazing lands to the 

production levels found prior to development. 

Recreational activities would impact livestock grazing management through direct human disturbance. 

Human disturbance could include animal displacement and injury or death to animals caused by vehicle 

collisions and shooting. 

Soil management actions would generally enhance vegetation through reducing erosion and improving 

soil conditions, which would increase forage available for livestock. Where rangeland monitoring data 

indicate that accelerated erosion exists or that soil cover (vegetation and litter) is insufficient and could be 

improved through changes in livestock management, appropriate changes would be required to improve 

vegetation cover and reduce impacts on soils to meet the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Effects on livestock operations would result from the implementation of grazing management practices 

designed to protect vegetation and soil resources. These impacts would be site-specific, but would 

generally increase management actions and short-term costs for livestock operators, while preserving the 

long-term viability of soil and vegetation resources. 

OHV use would impact livestock grazing management through direct human disturbance. These impacts 

could include animal displacement and injury or death to animals caused by vehicles. It is also expected 

that incidental damage to range improvements and unplanned livestock movement as a result of gates left 

open would occur as a result of OHV use. 

Pinedale RMP 4-41 
Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

Vegetation management actions designed to enhance vegetation production, age class, structural diversity, 

and plant community health would benefit livestock grazing by increasing forage availability and 

improving livestock distribution and animal performance. Vegetation manipulation projects would be 

designed to reach or maintain rangeland health requirements outlined in the Wyoming Standards for 

Rangeland Health, but could also result in short-term reductions in available forage. Vegetation 

management could also result in grazing management adjustments to the season and duration of use, 

affecting the operators’ overall grazing operation. 

Prevention and treatment of invasive species and noxious weeds would maintain or improve plant 

community health. These actions could temporarily displace livestock and reduce the available forage. 

BMPs for livestock grazing would be implemented to discourage the introduction and spread of invasive 

species. 

Projects designed to enhance watershed health would enhance vegetation resources by reducing erosion 

and improving water quality, thereby increasing forage levels for livestock. However, adjustments in 

livestock management could be needed to meet or maintain riparian habitat requirements, PFC, and water 

quality objectives. These adjustments could include grazing deferments, season-long rest, and fencing of 

riparian areas, or other adjustments determined appropriate for the specific area in question. These 

activities could reduce management flexibility and increase costs in areas where streams are not properly 

functioning or where water quality objectives are not being met until these goals are obtained. The 

potential long-term effect of meeting these goals would be an increase or maintenance of forage and water 

availability. 

Wildland fire would have varying effects on livestock grazing, depending on fire size and intensity, the 

time of year the fire occurs, and fuel moisture content. Wildland fire would initially displace livestock, 

and depending on the proximity of livestock to the wildland fire, livestock could be stressed, injured, or 

killed. Wildland fire would remove vegetation and decrease forage levels over the short term. However, 

over the long term, fire would generally improve forage production, especially when effective postfire 

management efforts are implemented. Wildland fire could also damage livestock improvements, such as 

fences and corrals, which would necessitate short-term management changes. 

Prescribed fire would be used to reduce or rejuvenate shrub cover and increase the herbaceous forage 

available for grazing animals. Over the long term, this action would increase management flexibility and 

improve grazing distribution. Prescribed fire would result in the short-term deferment of livestock grazing 

to allow for vegetation recovery. However, for a period of time after a fire, enhanced forage availability 

and production would be realized as herbaceous vegetation would temporarily replace woody shrub 

species. 

Wildlife habitat management activities would generally affect livestock grazing through potential grazing 

management changes intended to control livestock distribution and utilization of crucial habitats. Uneven 

distribution of big game would cause some grazing allotments to receive a disproportionate amount of use 

by wildlife within the entire planning area, which could further necessitate adjustments in livestock 

management. Sensitive wildlife habitats (e.g., greater sage-grouse leks, white-tailed prairie dog towns, 

and big game crucial winter ranges) would also influence location, design standards, the timing of 

construction, and the cost of range improvements. 

Water developments designed to provide new water sources for wildlife would increase water availability 

for livestock and would promote improved distribution of both livestock and wildlife. Large reservoirs 

capable of supporting fisheries provide a reliable source of water to livestock through drought periods. 

Protection of springs, seeps, and adjacent riparian areas from grazing animals would provide cleaner and 

more dependable water sources for livestock. 

4-42 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing 

Fisheries management actions, such as stream restoration and fish reintroduction, have the potential to 

impact livestock grazing through the construction of exclosures and riparian pastures. In addition, 

adjustments in livestock management such as in the timing and duration of pasture use could be needed to 

ensure adequate fish habitat. These adjustments could reduce the amount of forage available for livestock 

use. 

4.6.4 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 1. 

Additional forage would be available for livestock grazing in forested areas, which could improve 

distribution of use across forested allotments. 

Pipeline construction would disturb an average of 430 acres per year. Therefore, disturbance from 

pipelines over 20 years would total of 8,613 acres. About 51 AUMs for forage could be lost to pipeline 

construction in any one year. Most of these losses would be short term, because reclamation would 

replace livestock forage within 3 years of pipeline construction. About 153 AUMs at a time could be lost 

to pipeline construction if the success rate of reclamation remains the same. 

Under this alternative, 6,300 acres would be available for disposal, which could result in a loss of 

approximately 741 AUMs if all of these disposals were to proceed. These losses would be reduced if 

exchanges were conducted, and the areas acquired were suitable for and offered for livestock grazing. 

Under this alternative, the level of forage removal from livestock grazing is expected to maintain existing 

rangeland conditions, including a sustainable forage base. 

The 20,991 acres of unallocated forage in the planning area would be available for livestock allocation on 

a case-by-case basis. This could increase the number of available AUMs by 2,470, distributed over small 

parcels. The actual increase in forage availability would be less because livestock are already using many 

of these areas; often the unallocated areas are the result of fences not being located along landownership 

lines. Most of these parcels are too small to be used as alternative pastures following a wildland fire or 

during times of drought. In many cases, the costs for fencing the parcels to control livestock use would far 

exceed the fees that would be received from authorized grazing use. 

Closing vegetation treatment areas for two growing seasons after such treatment to allow vegetation to 

recover would reduce livestock management flexibility and increase costs to livestock operators during 

the time of closure, but it could result in long-term benefits to the forage base. 

Maintaining six elk feedgrounds on public lands in the planning area would continue the separation of elk 

and livestock on winter feed lines and limit the destruction of private hay by elk, to the extent that success 

is currently being achieved. Keeping elk and cattle separated would help to prevent the transmission of 

brucellosis from elk to cattle, although concentrating elk on the feedgrounds could encourage spread of 

the disease among the elk. 

4.6.5 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 2. 

Pinedale RMP 4-43 
Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

The additional timber harvesting proposed under this alternative would increase the benefits to livestock 

grazing and would enable the historic stocking level to continue. There would be 9,467 additional 

forested acres actively managed to reach these levels. This would include intensive management of aspen 

woodlands, which would prevent conifer encroachment and allow greater herbaceous production in the 

understory. Precommercial thinning of 50 acres per year would also prevent the forest canopy from 

completely closing, allowing for additional herbaceous forage growth. 

Road construction resulting from oil and gas development would disturb 11,256 acres (1,317 AUMs), and 

pipeline construction would disturb 9,351 acres (1,094 AUMs). The impacts from pipeline construction 

and borrow areas of roads would be temporary, because reclamation would return herbaceous vegetation 

to the disturbed areas following construction. Long-term disturbance would remain on 7,434 acres (870 

AUMs) across the planning area. 

A total of 5,000 acres would be available for disposal by sale under this alternative. Disposal of all these 

areas could result in the loss of 588 AUMs, unless lands suitable for livestock grazing were received in 

exchange for the disposed lands and then offered for grazing. 

Suspended nonuse AUMs (Table A20-1) would be activated, resulting in more livestock grazing on 

public lands in the planning area. Up to 55,000 AUMs would be restored from suspended status to active 

use. This could result in a downward trend in rangeland condition, which from a general standpoint would 

be measured through changes in plant community composition. Forage increases realized through grazing 

management prescriptions and range improvement practices would likely be consumed by the increase in 

permitted livestock use. 

Fewer areas would be available for OHV travel (Map 2-21) as compared to under Alternative 1, resulting 

in fewer incidences of displaced livestock and of damage to range improvements. Fewer land use 

restrictions and greater opportunities for access would result from increased development and an 

expanded road network within the planning area. 

Permitting livestock grazing in riparian and other exclosures and removing existing exclosures would 

provide additional forage in these areas and could increase livestock management flexibility. Up to 100 

AUMs (about 0.1% of the currently available grazing use) could be made available for livestock grazing 

across the planning area through removal of exclosures (approximately 75 acres, mostly in riparian areas). 

This would be a negligible benefit.

The additional fire suppression efforts under this alternative would lessen the area of wildland fire effects, 

temporary forage losses, and postfire livestock management problems. The protection of range 

improvements would take precedence over the benefits of natural fire, reducing the potential for fire to 

destroy range improvements. The long-term enhancements in forage availability and production produced 

by wildland fire would be realized over fewer areas. Lack of rest of treated areas could lead to 

unsatisfactory vegetation recovery or to the spread of undesirable or noxious species. 

Elimination of elk feedgrounds located on BLM-administered public lands (six elk feedgrounds) would 

result in more elk wintering out on sagebrush ridges and other native winter ranges. The increase of 

livestock grazing AUMs under this alternative could result in less forage available in elk crucial winter 

habitats. Winter survival and reproductive rates among elk could be reduced, potentially resulting in 

reductions in elk populations. It is also likely that many elk would resort to feeding on private haystacks 

and commingling with livestock on feed lines. The risk of brucellosis transmission between the species 

would thereby increase. 

4-44 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing 

An increase in SD/MA designations and associated management actions would increase effects on 

livestock grazing compared to those under Alternative 1. Management of the Trapper’s Point ACEC 

would include limitations on surface disturbance, which would limit development of range improvements 

in these areas. This would be a minor impact on the livestock grazing program. 

4.6.6 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected under 

Alternative 3. 

Impacts resulting from fire and fuels management would be similar to those under Alternative 2, except 

that there would be an emphasis on restoring the natural role of fire to the ecosystem. This would enable a 

long-term balance of herbaceous and woody vegetation, thereby providing for a stable forage source for 

livestock. 

Under this alternative, less timber would be harvested than under either Alternatives 1 or 2. The same 

amount of thinning would occur under this alternative as under Alternative 2. These factors would result 

in less overall herbaceous forage in forested areas. 

Approximately 790 acres would be available for disposal. Disposal of all designated areas could result in 

a loss of 93 AUMs, unless there were lands suitable for livestock grazing received in exchange for the 

disposed lands. This would not result in a considerable number of AUMs in any given allotment. 

Active AUMs would be reduced to 84,000. This would result in fewer animals grazing on public lands 

within the planning area and could represent a significant reduction of utilized AUMs in some areas. This 

would reduce operating flexibility for permittees. The Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health could be 

more easily achieved in some areas under reduced grazing pressure. While a large reduction, using the 

average actual use since 1988 as a basis for the reduction would mean that larger voluntary reductions had 

been taken roughly half the time during the last 18 years. In practicality, the reduction would not require a 

sudden change in physical livestock numbers, but a paper documenting the amount of use during a cycle 

of drought and wet years over almost 2 decades. 

Designing range improvements to principally support wildlife and waterfowl habitat and watershed 

objectives and generally not impact big game winter ranges would increase design and construction costs 

of improvements. This would also affect the location of the improvements; some proposed projects could 

not be placed in the most optimal location for livestock benefit but would be placed to benefit other 

programs instead. This could require more intensive livestock management and could increase 

construction and maintenance costs. 

Closing the Rock Creek ACEC to livestock grazing would remove livestock from the Rock Creek pasture 

of the Upper North LaBarge individual allotment. Approximately 290 AUMs would be lost to the grazing 

permittee, necessitating a reduction in livestock numbers or a shorter season of use in the Upper North 

LaBarge individual allotment. 

Incorporating deferments and/or periods of rest into allotments where grazing begins prior to June 1 

would result in operating changes for permittees, including delayed turnout onto allotments, increases in 

project maintenance, and increased herding activities. These changes would allow for forage species to 

complete their reproductive cycles, which would maintain the health of the rangeland and its ability to 

support livestock numbers. There would be increased operating costs for livestock permittees. 

Pinedale RMP 4-45 
Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

Establishment of forage reserve allotments would increase the flexibility and opportunity to conduct 

vegetation treatments. Benefits of a more intensive vegetation treatment program would include greater 

diversity in vegetation species and age classes over the landscape and increased perennial herbaceous 

forage production and vigor in the long term. Livestock management on more productive range sites 

could become less labor intensive. Conversely, resting allotments following treatment would temporarily 

decrease the overall AUMs available to livestock operators. 

Closing campgrounds and recreational sites to livestock grazing would result in minimal loss of forage in 

certain allotments and would remove about 15 AUMs of forage from availability for livestock grazing 

across the planning area. This impact would be negligible. 

Additional seasonal and year-round OHV closures could further inhibit livestock operators from 

accessing livestock and range improvements for maintenance and construction. 

More restrictions and fewer opportunities for access would result from decreased development and a 

limited road network within the planning area. 

Construction of new exclosures to help achieve riparian and vegetation objectives would result in small 

losses of forage to the livestock grazing program. New exclosures would also increase the fence 

maintenance needs in allotments where they are built, and could create obstacles to moving livestock 

efficiently through and between allotments. 

Eliminating the use of chemicals to control noxious weeds would result in a greater rate of spread of 

weeds, because most mechanical and biological controls are not effective or rapid enough to control the 

spread of weeds. Invasion and establishment of noxious weeds could result in decreased hydrologic 

function and loss of grazing capacity. 

Resting vegetation treatment areas for 1 year prior to treatment and 2 years posttreatment would result in 

short-term limitations in livestock management options and temporary reductions of livestock grazing in 

treated areas. Vegetation community and production recovery in treated areas would be enhanced, 

increasing the posttreatment grazing capacity of treated lands in the long term. Designing vegetation 

treatments to reestablish the natural role of fire in the ecosystem would generally enhance forage 

availability for livestock grazing in the long term. Strict livestock management would be needed in the 

short term following wildland fire, to enable prescribed fires to occur. 

Management emphasis on Special Status Plant Species and their habitats could alter grazing management 

through restrictions on placement of improvements, utilization patterns, season and duration of use, or 

other aspects of livestock management. 

Designating 169,570 acres near the Lander Trail as VRM Class II would inhibit the development of some 

range improvements. Range improvements that would affect the viewshed or the setting of the trail would 

not be allowed within 3 miles of the trail, which would restrict the use of fences and water developments 

and would potentially alter grazing management practices. Because the trail crosses the entire planning 

area, this impact would be widespread over many allotments. 

Making approximately 21,000 acres of unallocated parcels of public lands unavailable for livestock 

grazing would necessitate fencing most of the parcels to control ongoing unauthorized use. This intensity 

of fencing around mostly small (2- to 5-acre) parcels would create impediments to wildlife movement, 

would be difficult to maintain, and would cost more than the value of the forage on those parcels. 

4-46 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing 

Actions designed to reduce the need for elk feedgrounds through habitat improvement would result in 

increased management of livestock grazing in these areas. Less available forage for livestock in historic 

elk wintering areas could result. 

The exclusion of livestock from elk parturition areas between May 1 and June 30 would require fencing, 

management actions such as herding, changes in season of use, or closure of allotments. This would 

increase rangeland management costs. This seasonal restriction could reduce the risk of transmission of 

brucellosis between elk and cattle. 

Prohibiting range improvements in the WSR units would have little or no impact on livestock grazing in 

the Scab Creek, Silver Creek, and East Fork River WSR areas, as these areas are seldom reached by 

livestock and are generally unsuitable for most range improvements. The requirement that new range 

improvements enhance the outstandingly remarkable characteristics of the WSR would make 

development of range improvements more difficult in the Green River WSR Unit. The combined impacts 

of WSR designation and recreation management in the Green River access sites could make livestock 

grazing difficult to manage in the Spade allotment. 

4.6.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 4. 

Impacts resulting from forest management would be the same as those identified under Alternative 2. 

The impacts from the following activities would be similar to those impacts described under Alternative 

3: fire and fuels management, transportation and access management, establishment of forage reserve 

allotments, the closure of campgrounds and recreational sites to livestock grazing, the closure of existing 

and new exclosures to livestock grazing, the incorporation of deferments and/or periods of rest into 

allotments where grazing begins prior to June 1, measures to improve elk habitat adjacent to elk 

feedgrounds, the exclusion of livestock from elk parturition areas between May 1 and June 30, and 

designation of the WSR units. 

Range improvements would be evaluated for their impact on the viewshed of the Lander Trail. These 

restrictions could inhibit construction of fences and water developments, which would potentially alter 

grazing management and result in a reduction of utilized AUMs. 

Resting vegetation treatment areas for 2 years after treatment would result in limited short-term livestock 

management options associated with prescribed burning and temporary reductions of livestock grazing in 

treated areas. Vegetation community and production recovery in treated areas would be enhanced, 

increasing the posttreatment grazing capacity of treated lands in the long term. 

Livestock could be excluded from unallocated public lands, which would result in a loss of potential 

forage for livestock. 

Management actions to achieve or maintain a seral stage appropriate for the maximum benefit of 

Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) could alter the management of livestock in CRCT habitat areas. 

Livestock management strategies could include reduced forage allocation, deferred or shortened grazing 

periods, the use of riparian pastures, increased cattle herding, increased fencing, and development of 

upland water. 

Pinedale RMP 4-47 
Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing Final EIS 

Increased emphasis on maintaining and improving habitats for sensitive species would result in limited 

range improvements and adjustments in livestock management where grazing activities impact the 

integrity of the species or their habitat. 

4-48 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

4.7 MINERALS 

4.7.1 Leasable Minerals 

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 

apply only to federal-owned minerals and are not intended to suggest or give BLM jurisdiction over stateowned or privately owned minerals. 

This section describes potential impacts on the management of mineral resources from management 

actions for other resource programs. Chapter 3 (Section 3.7) describes existing conditions concerning 

mineral resources. 

Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development would continue to occur in the planning area 

during the planning period. 

• Leaseholders have the right to explore, develop, and produce mineral resources from any valid, 

existing lease, even if the area containing the lease were proposed to be closed to future leasing. 

• A valid, existing mineral lease is a legally issued lease secured by a leaseholder before the 

effective date of the record of decision (ROD) for this RMP/Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS). 

• Surface use restrictions, including timing limitation stipulations (TLS), NSO stipulations, and 

controlled surface use (CSU) stipulations, as well as unavailable for leasing designations, cannot 

be retroactively applied to valid, existing oil and gas leases or to valid, existing use authorizations 

(e.g., Application for Permit to Drill [APD]). Postlease actions/authorizations (e.g., APDs, 

road/pipeline ROWs), however, could be encumbered by TLS and CSU restrictions on a case-bycase basis, as required through project-specific NEPA analysis or other environmental review. 

• Leasable mineral resources would be considered unrecoverable in areas designated unavailable 

for leasing. They would also be considered unrecoverable in areas open to leasing but where 

surface use constraints prohibit development operations on areas larger than can be technically 

and economically developed from offsite locations. Leasable mineral resources within leased inholdings would be considered recoverable. 

• Oil and gas development potential is based on the following Wyoming State Office Reservoir 

Management Group (RMG) categories: 

– Very high potential for hydrocarbon development (Map 4-1) indicates areas where the 

average well density is anticipated to be more than 500 wells per township (36 square 

miles). 

– High potential for hydrocarbon development (Map 4-1) indicates areas where the average 

well density is anticipated to be more than 100 wells per township. 

Pinedale RMP 4-49 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

– Moderate potential for hydrocarbon development (Map 4-1) indicates areas where the 

average well density is anticipated to be between 20 and 100 wells per township. 

– Low potential for hydrocarbon development (Map 4-1) indicates areas where the average 

well density is anticipated to be less than 20 wells per township. 

– Very low potential for hydrocarbon development (Map 4-1) indicates areas where the 

average well density is anticipated to be less than two wells per township. 

– No potential for hydrocarbon developments (Map 4-1) indicates areas where no wells are 

anticipated. 

• Other than the depletion of hydrocarbon reserves through authorized fluid mineral leasing, 

development, and production operations, the resource management actions developed through 

this plan would not physically impact the subsurface oil and gas resources in the planning area. 

• The primary impact on the leasable minerals program from the land use decisions in this plan 

would be a reduction in the availability of the hydrocarbon resources for extraction and consumer 

use. This would result in an increase in the cost to the producer and consumer. 

• Directional drilling could be used to access hydrocarbon resources under areas constrained by 

surface use restrictions (e.g., 25% slopes, within 500 feet of riparian areas, NSO restrictions for 

elk feedgrounds, within a one-quarter mile CSU zone around greater sage-grouse leks) that 

necessitate relocating wells outside the drilling window established by the Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission (WOGCC). 

• Directional drilling viability and offset distance varies with the target formation, the top depth of 

the target formation, and formation productivity (currently on the Pinedale Anticline, for instance, 

directional drilling is reaching offset distances of 2,200 to 2,500 feet). 

• For the purposes of this document, resources more than one-half mile inside the boundary of an 

NSO area would be considered unavailable for hydrocarbon extraction. 

• Directional drilling would potentially increase well development costs by approximately 10% to 

15% for offset distances of up to 2,000 feet (Eustes 2004). 

• Directional drilling can result in unrecoverable hydrocarbon resources in cases when the drill 

stem gets irretrievably stuck and the production casing cannot be set to the bottom of the 

production formation. 

• No coal leasing or development is anticipated. 

• Demand for salable minerals would occur over the next 20 years at increased levels. 

• No development of other solid leasable minerals (trona, oil shale, or phosphate) is anticipated. 

Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources within the 

planning area, reviews of existing literature, and information provided by other agencies. Spatial analysis 

was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 computer software, and the results were quantified 

where possible (refer to Table 2-32, Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements by 

Hydrocarbon Potential [Approximate Federal Subsurface Acres] for Conventional Oil and Gas, p. 2-169 

and Table 2-33, Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements by Hydrocarbon Potential 

[Approximate Federal Subsurface Acres] for CBNG, p. 2-176). The oil and gas development potential 

(RFD) for Alternatives 1 through 4, as well as the unrestricted development potential (only standard lease 

stipulations would be required), were developed by RMG and are shown in Table 4-2. RMG correlated 

4-50 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

the projected oil and gas recovery estimates for the unrestricted development base and for each alternative 

(Tables A10-4 and A10-5 in Appendix 10). RMG also developed the fluid mineral development potential, 

which reflects the number of wells anticipated to be developed in a township (36 square miles) during the 

planning period (e.g., in an area with high development potential, where between 100 and 500 wells 

would be anticipated for an average township over the planning period). (See the Assumptions above for 

the complete range of development potentials.) In the absence of quantitative data, best professional 

judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes described using ranges of potential impacts or are described in 

qualitative terms if appropriate. 

Table 4-2. Total Number of Well Locations (Pads) by Alternative— 

Federal Minerals Only (RFD) 

Alternative 

Total Number of 

Single Well Pads 

(CBNG) 

Total Number of 

Single Well Pads 

(non-CBNG) 

Total Number of 

Multiple Well Pads 

(non-CBNG) 

Total Number of 

Well Pads 

Unrestricted 

Development1 518 4,800 369 pads (2,585 wells) 5,687 pads (7,903 

wells) 

Alternative 1 430 4,732 290 pads (2,030 wells) 5,452 pads (7,192 

wells) 

Alternative 2 504 5,110 310 pads (2,190 wells) 5,924 pads (7,804 

wells) 

Alternative 3 300 3,436 210 pads (1,473 wells) 3,946 pads (5,209 

wells) 

Alternative 4 465 4,671 285 pads (2,000 wells) 5,421 pads (7,136 

wells) 1

 Only standard lease stipulations would be required 

Source: BLM-Wyoming RMG, 2006. 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Prescriptions and restrictions developed under each of the alternatives for surface resource management 

and protection would impact the rate of exploration, development, and extraction of leasable mineral 

resources. These prescriptions and restrictions would also increase the cost, to both the producer and the 

user of the end products, of exploring for, developing, and extracting those mineral resources. 

Seasonal and surface use restrictions that cause increased well development costs, or that render oil and 

gas resources unavailable or unrecoverable, can also impact geophysical exploration. The primary impact 

would be increased costs to the operator through the use of more expensive but less surface-disturbing 

techniques, such as small, portable foot- or helicopter-transported drills, in areas where vehicle-based 

geophysical operations are prohibited. If an operator is deprived of the opportunity to collect geophysical 

data, development location decisions would be based on old or nonexistent information, and the chance of 

drilling unsuccessful wells would increase. This results in both increased expense to the operator and in 

nonproductive disturbances to the land and surface resources. 

In addition to the prescriptions developed through this plan, there are additional in-place prescriptions, 

restrictions, and prohibitions imposed on leasable mineral development by existing oil and gas field 

development NEPA documents, including but not limited to the ROD for the Jonah Infill Project, the 

ROD for the Pinedale Anticline, and the ROD for the Big Piney/LaBarge Coordinated Activity Plan 

(CAP). The decisions in these documents are retained by reference in all alternatives of this RMP. The 

Pinedale RMP 4-51 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

impacts on leasable minerals development are disclosed in those guiding NEPA documents and are 

essentially the same as those described below. 

All alternatives have NSO and CSU restrictions on a portion of lands available for mineral leasing, which 

preclude surface occupancy. Development of the mineral resources in these areas would require offsite 

methods such as directional drilling. The equipment and personnel for directional drilling increase 

development costs by 10% to 15%. Directional drilling also increases the risks of drilling problems (such 

as stuck casings) and diminished well production. 

Of the 141 directional wells drilled by EnCana in the Jonah Field between 2002 and 2005, the drill 

stem/casing became stuck on 121 wells (86%). Of these, 39 became stuck at an average of 288 feet above 

the bottom of the hole and 82 became stuck at the targeted bottom-hole depth. The down-hole stuck 

casing problems and the attempted correctives increased the well development cost an average of about 

$250,000 over and above the cost of the directional wells drilled where no appreciable down-hole 

problems occurred. Of the 39 wells that became stuck above the targeted total depth, 33 were completed 

and put into production either without getting the hole drilled to total depth or without getting the 

production casing to the total productive formation depth. EnCana estimates the gas volume lost by the 

inability to produce these wells from their targeted depths to be approximately 360 million cubic feet 

(MMCF) per well or 11.95 billion cubic feet (BCF) for all 33 wells. This example captures one moment 

in time by one operator. Other operators may or may not have similar results or experiences. 

Emission mitigation would be required under all alternatives to reduce impacts on air quality, visibility, 

and potentially climate change. The best available drill rig technologies would be used to lessen rig 

emissions. This would result in a reduction of air quality impacts from oil and gas development 

operations. However, implementing these requirements could result in greater operating costs and could 

make some resources less attractive to develop. 

If future analysis determines that the mitigation has not been sufficiently effective to prevent emissions 

from oil and gas exploration and development from exceeding national or Wyoming ambient air quality 

standards, the development of additional wells could be in jeopardy. 

Typical impacts from cultural resource management actions on oil and gas exploration and development 

would include increased well development costs associated with cultural resource inventories, relocation 

of projects (well pads, roads, pipelines) to avoid a cultural site, implementation of offsite drilling 

(directional drilling) techniques, and/or site excavation if avoidance is not possible. Discovery of 

previously undocumented cultural features during project construction would delay project 

implementation while the site is evaluated. 

Forest management actions under all alternatives would have a negligible impact on mineral leasing or 

development. 

Under all alternatives, lands and realty management actions would impact fluid mineral development by 

providing ROWs for access roads and power lines to well pads and for gas transportation pipelines from 

well pads. Federal regulations require that access roads, power lines, or pipelines crossing one lease to 

access another be permitted through a ROW grant. Without such grants, operators would not be able to 

legally access some well pads. 

Oil and gas exploration and development often occur within grazing allotments. Oil and gas operators 

would have to abide by mitigations that would be specified in lease stipulations or in the conditions of 

approval (COA) for those operations. Mitigation measures within grazing allotments would increase the 

cost of oil and gas exploration and development. These measures would include providing for the upkeep 

4-52 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

and repair of fences and gates; reclaiming surface disturbance areas with native grass and forb species to 

prevent erosion and replace lost forage; monitoring and treating weeds and other non-native, invasive 

plant species that occupy areas disturbed by oil and gas development and production; and taking measures 

to prevent loss or injury to livestock. Livestock mitigation would not be expected to substantially affect 

the technical or economic viability of recovering hydrocarbon resources. The spring and fall seasonal 

restriction on the Cora Stock Driveway (4,160 acres) prohibits the leaseholder from developing the 

leasable mineral resource during those seasons. The Cora Stock Driveway has a low to moderate 

development potential for conventional oil and gas and a very low potential for CBNG; therefore, the 

overall impact on mineral resource development would be low. 

Fluid mineral (leasable) exploration, development, and production activities would occur under all 

alternatives. The mineral resources actually extracted would lead to an irreversible and irretrievable 

depletion of reserves. The ability to manage the volume of water produced during these activities would 

impact fluid mineral development. The disposal of drilling fluids, well completion (frac) fluids, and 

produced water must adhere to WDEQ and WOGCC regulations. Drilling and frac fluids would typically 

be evaporated in the on-location reserve pit and the remaining solids would be buried in place. Produced 

water would typically be transferred to a WDEQ-approved disposal pit or injection well. Reserve pit fluid 

could also be transferred to WDEQ-approved disposal facilities. The transfer and disposal of fluids at 

WDEQ-approved disposal sites would increase costs and could affect the viability of developing and 

producing fluid mineral resources. There would be a larger impact if there were insufficient disposal pit 

and injection well capacity to handle the volume of water that would be produced by the number of wells 

projected under each alternative. 

Federal minerals overlaid by privately owned lands could be leased for mineral development in areas 

available for lease. If these areas were explored or developed, industrial activity could occur on the lands 

and could include road and well pad construction, operation of drilling rigs, and installation of pipelines. 

Wildland fire management actions under all alternatives would have a minimal impact on the 

development and production of oil and gas resources. Fire management within the planning area would 

concentrate fire suppression in areas with high resource or human values, and as such would reduce the 

potential for catastrophic wildland fires in oil and gas fields. Fuel reduction management would also 

reduce the potential for catastrophic fires. In spite of concentrated fire suppression and fuel reduction 

projects, there would still be a potential for a wildland fire or an out-of-control prescribed fire to reach a 

well pad. Should this happen, on-location facilities could be damaged or destroyed. Stored hydrocarbon 

resources such as condensate would likely be consumed. 

Management actions to protect wildlife and fish and their habitats would have moderate to high impacts 

on the development and production of leasable minerals (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). Seasonal restrictions 

would have the most serious impacts in terms of acres affected. 

The restrictions would also delay fluid mineral product extraction and delivery to the consumer. In 

addition, activity during the seasons that are open to development and production is typically accelerated 

to compensate for the seasonal downtime, which creates the potential for overloading local service and 

emergency resources and also creates a greater potential for interactions with any wildlife species using 

the area during this period. 

Currently, drilling time in the planning area varies depending on well depth, from a few days for shallow 

wells to between 55 and 70 days for wells up to 14,000 feet deep. In portions of the planning area, 

potential hydrocarbon-bearing zones extend to 20,000 feet or deeper. The drilling time to reach these 

depths could exceed 6 months. Where these zones overlap areas that have wildlife-related restrictions on 

winter activity, the drilling time required could exceed the window of opportunity for conducting 

Pinedale RMP 4-53 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

unrestricted drilling; hence, these seasonal restrictions would potentially preclude the exploration and 

development of valuable hydrocarbon resources. Where the deep zones overlap areas that have greater 

sage-grouse nesting and winter restrictions, the drilling window is reduced from 5 and a-half months to 3 

and a-half months. To drill a deep well while having only a 3 and a-half-month drilling window would 

require that activity to extend over two or more drilling seasons, which would result in the operator being 

subjected to two or more sets of move-in and rig-up costs, as well as other inefficiencies. 

In portions of the planning area, natural gas occurs in separate, vertically stacked, disconnected sandstone 

lenses (i.e., minireservoirs). Severe timing limitations (e.g., a 3 and a-half-month-long drilling window) 

limit the number of wells that could be drilled in a year and prolongs the total time needed to develop a 

field. In projects involving disconnected sandstone lens or minireservoir configurations, a well bore may 

contact some lenses and totally miss others. As the contacted lenses are produced, the pressure in these 

lens decreases. As new well bores are drilled, they will contact untapped lenses, but may also contact 

producing lenses that have reduced formation pressure. This could result in pressure differential 

problems, which could lead to stuck casings and lost well control. Drilling problems decrease 

development efficiency, increase drilling costs, and reduce the overall recovery efficiency for natural gas. 

This problem would be most acute in the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Fields, as well as in other 

geologically similar areas. Although it would be difficult or impossible to estimate the volumes of 

potentially lost gas resources, they could be considerable. This problem would occur under any drilling 

scenario, short of drilling all the necessary wells at the same time, which is obviously not reasonable or 

practical, but the problem would be most prevalent in areas where the drilling window is 3 and a-halfmonths long. 

Areas with existing, proposed, or candidate T&E plant and animal species and their habitats would be 

managed to keep the proposed and candidate species from becoming listed as T&E and to keep existing 

species populations and habitat from declining. Future species would be managed in the same way. New 

mineral leases and postlease actions on existing leases would be required to avoid degradation of the 

species and their habitat. Where species/habitat protection prohibits or restricts surface occupancy or 

disturbance, the development of leasable mineral resources in the restricted area would require the use of 

offsite development techniques such as directional drilling. Leasable mineral resources in areas beyond 

the technical or economic reach of offsite development methods would be considered unrecoverable. 

Special Status Species inventories would be required for surface-disturbing projects in known or 

suspected Special Status Species habitat. The discovery of Special Status Species would potentially lead 

to a delay in the development and/or the relocation of well locations, access roads, pipelines, or ancillary 

facilities, as well as to the use of offsite development techniques. There are currently 930 acres of known 

sensitive plant habitat in the planning area. Across these habitat areas, the mineral development potential 

varies from very high to low for both CBNG and non-CBNG. Leaseholders/operators would be required 

to control weeds and other undesirable vegetation on areas disturbed by their mineral development 

actions. Weed control would add to the overall development costs but would not be expected to affect the 

overall economic viability of a well. 

The Lake Mountain WSA (13,490 acres) and the Scab Creek WSA (7,710 acres) would be unavailable for 

fluid mineral leasing and development under all alternatives. Actions meeting the nonimpairment criteria 

would be considered. These WSA closures would render the underlying hydrocarbon resources 

unavailable for extraction and human use. According to the Pinedale Mineral Occurrence and 

Development Potential Report (2003), there is currently no potential for non-CBNG or CBNG 

hydrocarbon development in the Scab Creek WSA; therefore, this closure would not impact leasable 

minerals development. The western portion of the Lake Mountain WSA has a low potential for nonCBNG development, whereas the eastern portion has a moderate potential for non-CBNG development 

(including Madison Formation hydrogen sulfuric acid [H2S]). The entire Lake Mountain WSA has a very 

4-54 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

low potential for CBNG development. The Lake Mountain closure would potentially impact hydrocarbon 

production in the planning area. The Lake Mountain WSA contains eight existing leases or portions of 

leases held valid by production from wells located outside of the WSA’s boundary. Six of the 

leases/portions of leases predate the passage of FLPMA in 1976 and therefore could sustain oil and gas 

exploration (including geophysical) and development under the Interim Management Procedures for 

WSAs. Development on the two post-FLPMA leases is precluded until a final wilderness determination is 

made. The unavailable for leasing designation would not preclude the holders of the six pre-FLPMA 

leases from developing those leases. The Lake Mountain WSA contains a 40-acre private in-holding and 

is partially bounded on the south by private surface ownership and on the west by state land. Mineral 

ownership on these parcels is either private or state. Should wells be developed on these private and state 

lands, there could be uncompensated drainage of federal mineral resources. Geophysical exploration 

would not be allowed on unleased lands in either WSA, unless it meets the nonimpairment criteria. This 

could limit an operator’s ability to collect sound geophysical data on areas adjacent to the WSA. 

Because of the low quality of the coal in the planning area and the thinness of the seams at or near the 

surface, no coal leasing or development is anticipated during the life of this plan. Therefore, no impacts 

on coal leasing or extraction are anticipated. Should it be determined in the future that coal resources in 

the planning area are suitable for leasing and extraction (mining), the impacts from the various surface 

disturbances would impact coal development in essentially the same way as they impact fluid mineral 

development under each of the alternatives. Because no coal leasing or development was assumed, no 

additional impact analysis for coal leasing or extraction was conducted. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

This alternative would be the second least restrictive to oil and gas exploration and development 

activities. The 7,927 wells (federal minerals) projected under this alternative would potentially extract 

19,104 BCF of natural gas and 157 million barrels of oil over the life of the plan, which is a 7% reduction 

in the projected number of wells and a 5% reduction in the projected gas and oil volume from the 

unrestricted estimates. Approximately 172,500 acres would be unavailable for fluid mineral leasing, 

exploration, development, or production. Existing leased in-holdings in this latter category would be 

available for exploration, development, and production as prescribed in the lease contract. Approximately 

41,300 acres would be constrained by an NSO restriction. Under the NSO restriction, federal fluid 

minerals could be leased, but the leaseholder/operator would have to use offsite methods such as 

directional drilling to access the mineral resource. About 253,220 acres would be constrained by CSU 

restrictions. Under this designation, federal oil and gas minerals could be leased. Surface disturbance 

would be prohibited or restricted, but development could occur if the impact on the affected resource is 

mitigated. Approximately 1,026,780 acres would be available for leasing and development, but these 

activities would be constrained by TLSs, which limit the time of the year during which these activities can 

occur. About 187,540 acres would be available for fluid mineral leasing and development with standard 

lease stipulations. 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 1. 

There would be minor impacts from cultural resource management actions on oil and gas exploration and 

development. NSO restrictions would be allowed on approximately 4,620 acres of selected communal big 

game kill sites (Trapper’s Point), Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, and Native American burial 

locales and TCP sites (including 470 acres at the Boulder Lake Archeological District). Offsite drilling 

would be required to access oil and gas resources underlying these sites, which would incur the associated 

directional drilling impacts. Vehicle-based and shot-hole geophysical operations would be prohibited, but 

geophysical cable laying would be allowed. Based on Maps 4-1 and 4-2 (from the Pinedale Mineral 

Pinedale RMP 4-55 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

Occurrence and Development Potential Report, January 2003), most of these sites are within areas of low 

to moderate development potential. The site located in the Big Piney/LaBarge oil and gas field has 

moderate to high potential for natural gas and CBNG development. The Boulder Lake Archeological 

District has low to no potential for non-CBNG development and very low to no potential for CBNG 

development. Because of the generally low potential for development and the small size of these site 

areas, the impacts on fluid mineral exploration, development, and production from the management of 

these sites would be minimal. 

Contributing segments of the Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff Trail would be encumbered by a CSU 

stipulation that prohibits surface disturbance, including geophysical vehicle or shot-hole operations within 

one-quarter mile or the visual horizon, whichever is closer (geophysical cable laying by hand-crews on 

foot is allowed). The Sublette Cutoff has a low to moderate potential for both non-CBNG and CBNG 

development. The Lander Trail has a moderate potential for non-CBNG development in the LaBarge 

Platform area and on the flanks of the Pinedale Anticline, a high potential for non-CBNG development on 

the Pinedale Anticline, and a low potential for non-CBNG development elsewhere. The Lander Trail 

CBNG development potential varies from high in South Piney Creek Canyon, to moderate in Deer Hills, 

to low near Marbleton, and to very low elsewhere. To meet the one-quarter-mile setback and trail 

management criteria, operators would be required to consolidate multiple wells onto a single pad and to 

employ directional drilling, thus increasing development costs as previously described. Development of 

oil and gas resources underlying the rest of the Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trail system NSO area would 

require directional drilling and could potentially result in some fluid mineral resource being 

unrecoverable. 

A 400-acre TCP funerary site would be unavailable for leasing and geophysical operations. The 

underlying fluid mineral resources would be considered unrecoverable. The development of federal wells 

on the south, west, or north sides of this site could result in unauthorized drainage of the underlying 

hydrocarbon. This loss would be somewhat mitigated because the product would be included in the gas 

volume legally extracted from the lease containing the wells. Consequently, the product would be 

accounted for and royalties collected. There would be loss of lease fees that would have been generated 

by auctioning the parcel for lease. The east side of the site is private surface and private minerals. The site 

area has a moderate potential for non-CBNG development and a very low potential for CBNG 

development. Drainage of federal hydrocarbon resources underlying the site through a private well would 

constitute an irretrievable loss of resource. 

OHV management actions would impact the exploration for and development of leasable minerals, by 

restricting surface-disturbing activities on about one-third of the federal mineral acreage to a November 

15 to April 30 (6 and a-half-month) development window, by instituting a year-round closure in some 

areas, and by precluding unauthorized human presence in other areas (Map 2-13). Approximately 13,620 

acres (Scab Creek WSA, Rock Creek ACEC, and Holden Hill) would be closed year-round to OHV use, 

which would preclude oil and gas exploration (including geophysical) and development. The Scab Creek 

WSA has no potential for either CBNG or non-CBNG development. The western portion of the Lake 

Mountain WSA has a low development potential for both CBNG and non-CBNG; the eastern portion has 

a moderate development potential for non-CBNG and a low development potential for CBNG. The 

Holden Hill closure has a moderate development potential for non-CBNG and a low development 

potential for CBNG. 

Approximately 577,850 acres would be closed to OHV use from November 15 to April 30. This 

corresponds with big game crucial winter range closures and precludes surface-disturbing activity, 

including oil and gas development, during this time. This would seasonally limit the extent of exploration 

(including geophysical operations) and development that could occur in these areas. Within the big game 

winter range OHV seasonal closure, the Bench Corral area and elk feedgrounds would not only be closed 

4-56 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

to surface-disturbing activities, but would also be closed to unauthorized human presence from November 

15 through April 30 annually. This would potentially impact production operations, such as pumper 

access, workover rig, and condensate/produced water hauling, as well as geophysical exploration in the 

closure area during the closure period. The closure would not restrict emergency access, nor would it 

prevent operations required to protect human and environmental safety. The leasable minerals 

development potential in the winter range OHV seasonal closure areas for non-CBNG varies from low to 

high and for CBNG from very low to high. The Bench Corral area and the Franz and North Piney elk 

feedgrounds have a very low potential for CBNG development and a moderate potential for non-CBNG 

development. The Fall Creek and Scab Creek elk feedgrounds have no potential for either CBNG or nonCBNG development. (Note: The elk feedgrounds are encumbered by an NSO restriction, for which 

impacts are discussed in Section 4.17—Wildlife and Fish Habitat.) 

Approximately 247,250 acres would be open to OHV use year-round. OHV use on an additional 662,060 

acres would be limited to existing roads and trails. OHV use that is open and limited to existing roads and 

trails would have no to minimal impact on leasable minerals development. 

The impact of paleontological resource protections on leasable minerals exploration (including 

geophysical operations) and development would be minimal. If paleontological resources were discovered 

during an inventory, they would be managed according to BLM procedures. Avoidance of important 

paleontological resources would be accomplished in a manner similar to cultural resources, by such 

measures as relocation of access roads, drill pads, pipelines, and other ancillary facilities. Avoidance 

would possibly require delays in developing the resource and/or would result in directional drilling. 

Actions to close or restrict areas for fossil protection, or the development of RNAs or NNLs, would likely 

preclude or restrict leasable minerals development. Depending on the size of the protected area, or on the 

size of the RNA or NNL, the underlying hydrocarbon resources could be rendered technically or 

economically unrecoverable. 

Vehicle-based geophysical operations could be prohibited in areas with known paleontological resources 

and in areas with a high potential to contain paleontological resources. Geophysical data source points 

would avoid paleontological sites. The data points would be either moved away from the site or skipped 

entirely. Depending on the size of the avoidance area and the geophysical data collection parameters, 

paleontological site avoidance could result in gaps in the subsurface geology data that are collected. 

The one-quarter-mile no surface disturbance restriction around developed recreational sites would 

preclude leasable minerals development on about 2,060 acres (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). Extraction of the 

underlying hydrocarbon resources would require more expensive and higher risk offsite techniques such 

as directional drilling. The hydrocarbon development potential for designated campsites is as follows. The 

Warren Bridge (110 acres) and Upper Green River campgrounds (all sites located in the Upper Green 

River SRMA acreage) have a low potential for non-CBNG development and a very low potential for 

CBNG development. Boulder Lake/Boulder Lake Boat Ramp/Stokes Crossing (1,370 acres) has low to no 

potential for non-CBNG development and very low to no potential for CBNG development. The New 

Fork campground (470 acres) has a low potential for non-CBNG development and a very low potential 

for CBNG development. For both CBNG and non-CBNG development, the Huston Boat Access (450 

acres) has a low potential; the Fear Boat Access (180 acres) has a moderate potential; and the Scab Creek 

campground (130 acres) has no potential. Recreation impacts on geophysical exploration would be 

minimal, because operations could be conducted using the existing roads and trails with the campgrounds. 

Within the Boulder Lake SRMA (5,790 acres), a one-quarter-mile NSO restriction would be applied to 

protect the established recreational sites and campgrounds (see impacts above; also refer to Tables 2-32 

and 2-33). The rest of the SRMA would be open to leasing with a CSU restriction. Geophysical 

operations would be considered on a case-by-case basis; consequently, impacts cannot be projected at this 

Pinedale RMP 4-57 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

time. Should the NSO and CSU restriction areas be wider than the technical/economic reach for 

directional drilling, some hydrocarbon resources may be rendered unrecoverable. Based on the oil and gas 

development potential for this area (i.e., low to none for non-CBNG production and very low to none for 

CBNG production) (Pinedale Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report, 2003), the NSO 

and CSU restrictions for the Boulder Lake SRMA would have minimal impacts on leasable minerals 

production for the planning area. 

The portion of the Scab Creek SRMA outside the WSA (10,750 acres) and the Upper Green River SRMA 

(5,160 acres) would both be open to oil and gas leasing with CSU stipulations, which would potentially 

require the use of higher cost directional drilling techniques and procedures. Should the avoidance areas 

be wider than the technically feasible reach for directional drilling, some leasable mineral resources 

would be rendered unrecoverable. The portion of the Scab Creek SRMA within the WSA boundary would 

be closed to oil and gas leasing (see Impacts Common to All Alternatives, above). As with the Boulder 

Lake SRMA, the impact on hydrocarbon production in the planning area from the restrictions for the Scab 

Creek SRMA would be negligible because of the projected development potential (i.e., none for nonCBNG or CBNG development) (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). Potential impacts on non-CBNG development in 

the Upper Green River SRMA would be higher than in the Scab Creek SRMA because the northern 

portion of the SRMA has a moderate potential for non-CBNG development (Map 4-1). Impacts on 

geophysical operations would be the same as those under the Boulder Lake SRMA. 

The CCC Ponds area (500 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with CSU stipulations within onequarter mile of the ponds (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). Development potential, development criteria, and the 

impact on leasable minerals management, including geophysical operations, would be similar to that 

under the Boulder Lake SRMA. 

Under this alternative, soils and watershed management actions, as prescribed by Appendix 2, would 

impact leasable minerals development and vehicle-based geophysical operations by restricting surface 

disturbance to slopes with less than 25% inclines, and by prohibiting disturbances within 500 feet of 

wetland/riparian and live water areas, including springs, seeps, and livestock water developments. These 

restrictions and prohibitions would cover 156,150 acres. Extraction of subsurface mineral resources from 

these areas would require more costly and higher risk offsite operations such as directional drilling. 

Where the size of those areas with restrictions related to steep slopes, wetland/riparian, and live water 

makes those areas’ resources beyond the technical or economic reach of offsite methods, the unreachable 

mineral resource would be considered unrecoverable. The 25% slope incline and riparian restriction areas 

are located throughout the planning area and encompass the full range of potential for mineral 

development, from no potential along the Wind River Front MA to high potential in the Jonah and 

Pinedale Anticline Fields. Geophysical data collection in these areas would require nonvehicle-based 

operations such as heli-portable shot-hole drilling. This increases the exploration cost to the operator and 

the end product cost to the hydrocarbon consumer. 

Under the management actions prescribed for access and transportation management, some existing roads 

could be closed. Closure of duplicative roads would have minimal or no impact on leasable minerals 

exploration, development, or production. 

Approximately 13% of the federal surface and mineral estate in the planning area would be designated as 

VRM Class II. Because surface disturbance activities in VRM Class II areas can be visible but must not 

attract the attention of the casual observer, meeting this objective would require relocating certain 

projects, combining them in areas out of view, or otherwise mitigating them. Relocation would then 

require the use of directional drilling to reach the original target. If the relocation is to an area where the 

resources are beyond the technical and economic reach of directional drilling, some mineral resources 

could become unrecoverable. 

4-58 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

About 37% of the federal surface and mineral estate in the planning area would be VRM Class III. Under 

this classification, the level of change in the landscape can be moderate. Projects can be visible, but still 

should not dominate the viewshed. Less impacting measures such as facility design, arrangement, and 

coloration may be sufficient to meet the VRM Class III objectives. Facility design that requires the 

retooling and manufacture of new components when standard components are available could increase 

the project cost borne by the leaseholder/operator. Extensive redesign could render some oil and gas wells 

uneconomic. Some project relocation could still be required. Relocation impacts would be the same as 

previously described. 

The remaining 49% of the federal surface and mineral estate would be designated as VRM Class IV. 

Under this classification, the level of change and visibility can be high, but measures should still be taken 

to reduce the visibility. Centralized facilities, facility arrangements, and coloration should meet the VRM 

Class IV objectives. Project relocation warranting directional drilling would typically not be needed. The 

potential for fluid mineral development varies from low to high across the VRM Class II, III, and IV 

designated areas. 

The development of roads, pipelines, well pads, and other leasable minerals facilities would be restricted 

and/or prohibited within 100-year flood plains (43,250 acres) and within 500 feet of open or live water, 

wetland/riparian areas, and livestock water sources such as springs, reservoirs, and water wells (156,150 

acres) (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). These restrictions and/or prohibitions would potentially result in the 

relocation of these facilities. Where directional drilling is used to access hydrocarbon resources under 

wetland/riparian, live water, and livestock water sources, the cost of development would be the same as 

previously described. In addition, as previously described, hydrocarbon resources beyond directional 

drilling capabilities would be unrecoverable under current technology. Surface use would be restricted in 

the Soap Holes Basin (10,390 acres) to prevent increased salinity discharge to the Green River. 

Leaseholders would be required to design their construction equipment and facilities to prevent any 

discharge from their operations reaching the Green River. This could entail offsite development 

operations such as directional drilling. Some areas may not be reachable, in which case the fluid mineral 

resources could be unrecoverable. This restriction would not apply to state or private activities. Fluid 

mineral development on either of these ownerships that adjoin federal mineral estate could result in a 

noncompensated loss of federal mineral resources. The Soap Holes Basin has a low potential for CBNG 

development and low to moderate potential for non-CBNG development. 

The application of seasonal restrictions (November 15 through April 30) on crucial winter range (636,390 

acres) would prohibit lease development activities (drilling, well completion, pad construction) on 

encumbered leases for nearly one-half of each year. Surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities 

would also be prohibited in suitable nesting habitat (422,830 acres) within 2 miles of active greater sagegrouse leks from February 1 through July 31, in big game parturition areas (134,520 acres) from May 1 

through June 30, and in raptor nesting habitat (22,390 acres) from February 1 though July 31. The short 

season for development severely limits the operator’s/leaseholder’s ability to enter into long-term contacts 

with drill rig contractors, and this results in less rig availability and increased development costs through 

multiple mobilization costs and higher costs to secure drilling and completion equipment and resources 

during the May through mid-November peak drilling season. Development potential on the seasonal 

habitats varies from no potential for CBNG and non-CBNG along the Wind River Front to high potential 

for CBNG in the South Piney/Fish Creek area and to high potential for non-CBNG on the Mesa and 

Riverside portions of the Pinedale Anticline. The Big Piney/LaBarge CAP area is identified as having a 

moderate potential for both CBNG and non-CBNG development (Compare Map 2-1 to Maps 4-1 and 4-2 

to compare wildlife seasonal restrictions). 

Hydrocarbon extraction in the elk feedground NSO areas (15,460 acres) would potentially require the use 

of directional drilling, which would increase the risk of drilling problems, well failure, and the total cost 

Pinedale RMP 4-59 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

of well development by approximately 10% to 15%. Hydrocarbon resources in areas beyond the technical 

and economic reach of directional drilling or those rendered unreachable by down-hole problems would 

become unrecoverable. Development potential varies from no potential for both CBNG and non-CBNG 

on the Scab Creek and Fall Creek elk feedgrounds, to moderate potential on the North Piney, Finnegan, 

and Bench Corral elk feedgrounds for non-CBNG, and to moderate potential on the Finnegan elk 

feedground for CBNG. Greater sage-grouse leks occur throughout the planning area; consequently, the 

fluid mineral development potential of these areas would vary broadly. 

Activity between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. would not be allowed within one-half mile of active leks during 

strutting season, March 1 through May 15 (Table 4-3). This action would preclude leasable minerals 

activity in these areas during this time period, but would not appreciably limit the availability of land for 

development of leasable minerals. 

Table 4-3. Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Buffer Acreages 

(116 Total Leks) 

Lek Buffer Size Acres 

(BLM Land Only) 

One-quarter mile 32,090 

2 miles 520,720 

3 miles 624,560 

The greater sage-grouse protection restrictions would delay fluid mineral product extraction and delivery 

to the consumer. Phased development would potentially decrease efficiency and increase development 

costs to the operator through the costs incurred by multiple mobilizations, as well as higher costs incurred 

to secure drilling and completion equipment and resources during the limited drilling season. When areas 

with greater sage-grouse nesting restrictions overlap areas with big game crucial winter range restrictions, 

the oil and gas operator would potentially be restricted to a 3-and-a-half-month construction, drilling, and 

well completion season. This short drilling and development window in areas such as the Pinedale 

Anticline has led to accelerated operations, which results in congested traffic on primary access roads and 

a potential overload on local service and emergency resources. It also causes a yearly bust-and-boom 

cycle for the local communities as crews move in during the open development window then leave when 

the seasonal restrictions are invoked. 

The portion of the Rock Creek ACEC (4,580 acres) within the Rock Creek watershed and the portion of 

the ACEC west of the watershed boundary fall completely within the Lake Mountain WSA (13,490 acres) 

and would not be available for leasing (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). See Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

for additional information. 

The Beaver Creek ACEC (3,590 acres) would prohibit construction within 1,000 feet of streams and on 

slopes greater than 25% (Tables 2-32 and 2-33), which would require directional drilling to extract 

hydrocarbon resources. Should the avoidance areas be wider than the technical and economic reach for 

directional drilling, some hydrocarbon resources may be rendered unrecoverable. The Beaver Creek 

ACEC has a moderate potential for non-CBNG development and a high potential for CBNG 

development. Any unreachable resources would reduce the production potential for the planning area. 

The cost impacts of directional drilling would be as previously discussed. Vehicle-based geophysical 

operations would be restricted to existing roads and trails. To collect data in areas off existing roads and 

trails, the geophysical operator and leaseholder/operator would have to use more expensive heli-portable 

techniques. 

4-60 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

The federal mineral estate within the Wind River Front leasing moratorium area (243,040 acres) would be 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing. Consequently, any underlying hydrocarbon resources would not be 

available for consumer use. Wells developed on private or state lands within or adjacent to the Wind 

River Front would potentially drain federal minerals, which would constitute an irretrievable loss. Based 

on the 2003 Pinedale Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report, the Wind River Front has 

low to moderate potential for non-CBNG production and very low to no potential for CBNG production. 

Appendix 2 states that surface-disturbing activities may be prohibited within one-quarter mile of occupied 

dwellings. This would require conducting leasable minerals development activities from locales outside 

this restriction area. Offsite development would likely require methods such as directional drilling, 

provided such offsite methods are technically and economically feasible. An indirect impact would be 

that offsite methods typically have higher failure rates, drilling problem rates, and development costs than 

vertical onsite drilling. See Impacts Common to All Alternatives for additional information. 

Table 4-4 and Table 4-5 show the acres available for leasing by development potential for conventional 

oil and gas and CBNG, respectively, under Alternative 1. See Maps 4-1 and 4-2 for conventional oil and 

gas and CBNG potentials and Map 2-1 for oil and gas leasing classification under Alternative 1. 

Table 4-4. Lands Available for Conventional Oil and Gas Development (Alternative 1) 

Development Potential Subsurface Acres Available1

Very High 34,640 

High 96,360 

Moderate 485,040 

Low 413,573 

No Potential 0 1 Acres available are a combination of lands open to leasing with standard lease 

terms, lands open to leasing with minor constraints, and lands open to leasing 

with major constraints. Lands closed to leasing are not included in this table. 

Table 4-5. Lands Available for CBNG Development (Alternative 1) 

Development Potential Subsurface Acres Available1

High 19,180 

Moderate 118,880 

Low 136,696 

Very Low 718,870 

No Potential 6,390 1 Acres available are a combination of lands open to leasing with standard lease 

terms and lands open to leasing with minor constraints. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

This alternative would be the least restrictive to oil and gas exploration and development activities, 

because a larger percentage of the planning area would be available for leasing without major restrictions. 

The 8,465 wells (federal minerals) projected under this alternative would potentially extract 20,052 BCF 

of natural gas and 157 million barrels of oil during the life of the plan, which is a 1% reduction in the 

projected number of wells and projected gas and oil volume from the unrestricted estimates. 

Pinedale RMP 4-61 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

Approximately 175,750 acres of federal mineral estate would be available for intensive fluid mineral 

leasing, exploration, development, and production; approximately 999,440 acres would be designated 

Traditional Leasing Areas and available for restricted fluid mineral leasing, exploration, development, 

and production; and 21,850 acres would be unavailable for leasing, exploration, development, and 

production. Existing leased in-holdings in this latter category would be available for exploration, 

development, and production, as prescribed in the lease contract. 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 2. 

There would be minor impacts from cultural resource management actions on oil and gas leasing 

exploration and development. No surface occupancy would be allowed on approximately 4,080 acres of 

selected communal big game kill sites, Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, and Native American 

burial locales and TCP sites (including the Boulder Lake Archeological District). Vehicle-based and shothole geophysical operations would be prohibited, but geophysical cable laying would be allowed. Based 

on Maps 4-1 and 4-2, most of these sites are within areas of low to moderate development potential. Some 

of these sites are located in the Big Piney/LaBarge oil and gas field and have moderate to high potential 

for natural gas and CBNG development. The Boulder Lake Archeological District has low to no potential 

for non-CBNG development and very low to no potential for CBNG development. Because of the 

generally low potential for development and small size of these site areas, the impacts on fluid mineral 

exploration, development, and production from management of them would be minimal. Offsite drilling 

would be required to access oil and gas resources underlying these sites, which would incur the associated 

directional drilling impacts. 

The impacts from management of the Lander Trail and the Sublette Cutoff would be the same as those 

identified under Alternative 1. 

The impact of paleontological resource protection on leasable minerals exploration (including 

geophysical operations) and development would be minimal. If paleontological resources were discovered 

during an inventory, they would be managed according to BLM procedures. Avoidance of important 

paleontological resources would be performed in a manner similar to that used for cultural resources, such 

as by relocating access roads, drill pads, pipelines, and other ancillary facilities. This would possibly 

require delays in developing the resource and/or result in directional drilling. Impacts on geophysical 

operations would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. 

Impacts on leasable minerals development associated with developed campgrounds and the Boulder Lake 

(5,790 acres), Scab Creek (18,460 acres), and Upper Green River (5,160 acres) SRMAs would be the 

same as those described under Alternative 1. CCC Pond management would not impact leasable minerals 

development. 

This alternative would not contain a soils management restriction for slopes greater than 25%; 

consequently, there would be no corresponding impact on leasable minerals development. 

The Rock Creek ACEC designation would not be retained. The portion of the ACEC that occurs inside 

the Lake Mountain WSA boundary would remain part of the WSA (see Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives for WSA impacts). The portion of the ACEC that extends outside of the Lake Mountain 

WSA would be available for oil and gas leasing and development. Mineral development on portions 

outside the WSA would not be impacted. 

The Beaver Creek ACEC would not be retained. Mineral management would not be impacted. 

4-62 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

The Trapper’s Point ACEC (550 acres) would be unavailable for mineral leasing and development. 

Underlying mineral resources would be unavailable for production. Portions of that ACEC are bounded 

by private and state mineral ownerships. Fluid mineral development in either of these ownerships that 

adjoin the federal mineral estate could result in a noncompensated loss of federal mineral resources. The 

Trapper’s Point ACEC has a low potential for CBNG development and low to moderate potential for nonCBNG development. There are no existing leases in the ACEC area. The ACEC adjoins parts of private 

or state mineral estates. Mineral extraction from these nonfederal areas could result in drainage of federal 

hydrocarbon resources, which would constitute an irretrievable loss of resources. 

In the event that portions of any ACEC in the planning area would require reclassification to offset 

drainage or for other reasons, the converted area would be managed under the objectives and management 

actions established through a site-specific NEPA analysis. 

VRM classifications (Map 2-20) would place fewer restrictions on mineral development in the planning 

area because approximately 91% of the land would be either VRM Class III (118,390 acres) or VRM 

Class IV (717,390 acres). There would be no VRM Class I areas and therefore no Class I impacts on 

mineral development. VRM Class II (87,150 acres) would account for 9% of the planning area (Map 2-20 

and Table 2-29, p. 2-164). Although the size of the areas with specific VRM classifications are changed 

under this alternative, the impacts associated with management of VRM Class II, III, and IV areas would 

be the same as those identified under Alternative 1. 

Under this alternative, there would be no specific prescribed restrictions to surface disturbance or 

occupancy within flood plains, wetland/riparian, open water, or livestock water areas; however, adherence 

to Executive Order (E.O.) 11988 for flood plain management and E.O. 11990 for wetlands management 

would still preclude surface disturbance in these areas. Consequently, the impacts and affected acreage 

identified under Alternative 1 would also apply under this alternative. The 500-foot buffer to 

wetland/riparian, open water, or livestock water sources would not be applied. Surface discharge of 

produced water that meets WDEQ’s freshwater quality criteria and permitting requirements could be 

allowed; therefore, the impact of insufficient disposal facilities for produced water would potentially be 

alleviated. 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions to protect wildlife would have minor impacts on the 

development and production of leasable minerals. There would be no restrictions on activities in big game 

crucial winter ranges or parturition areas, in greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas, or near active 

leks. Occupied and suitable habitats for Special Status Species as well as for listed, proposed, and 

candidate T&E species would be protected. More land would be available for the development of leasable 

minerals, and management actions would be the least restrictive under this alternative compared to the 

other alternatives. Drilling to deep gas formations would not be impacted by the length of the drilling 

season, nor would the impacts of a short drilling season occur in the Lance Formation (disconnected 

lenticular sand lens) development in the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Fields. 

Table 4-6 and Table 4-7 show the percentage reductions of lands available for conventional oil and gas 

and CBNG development, respectively, under Alternative 2. 

Pinedale RMP 4-63 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

Table 4-6. Percent Change of Acres Available for Conventional Oil and Gas Development 

Under Alternative 2 

Development 

Potential 

Acres Available1

(Alternative 1) 

Acres Available1

(Alternative 2) 

Percent Change 

(%) 

Very High 34,640 34,760 <1 

High 96,360 103,900 8 

Moderate 485,040 500,860 3 

Low 413,570 510,060 2 

No Potential 0 41,160 NA 

1 Acres available are a combination of lands open to leasing with standard lease terms, lands open to 

leasing with minor constraints, and lands open to leasing with major constraints. Lands closed to leasing 

are not included in this table. 

Table 4-7. Percent Change of Acres Available for CBNG Development Under Alternative 2 

Development 

Potential 

Acres Available1

(Alternative 1) 

Acres Available1

(Alternative 2) 

Percent Change 

(%) 

High 19,180 19,190 <1 

Moderate 118,880 119,280 <1 

Low 136,696 167,570 23 

Very Low 718,870 819,230 14 

No Potential 6,390 63,580 895 

1 Acres available are a combination of lands open to leasing with standard lease terms, lands open to 

leasing with minor constraints, and lands open to leasing with major constraints. Lands closed to leasing 

are not included in this table. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

This alternative would be the most restrictive to the development of leasable minerals, primarily because 

a larger amount of the planning area would be unavailable for leasing and a greater array of leasable 

minerals development activities would be subject to NSO, CSU, and timing stipulations (Tables 2-32 and 

2-33). These actions would potentially lead to the relocation and/or delay in the development of well 

locations, access roads, pipelines, or ancillary facilities. As established in the Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives, Impacts from Alternative 1, and Impacts from Alternative 2, fluid mineral resources 

underlying lands unavailable to leasing and without remnant existing leases would be unrecoverable. 

Development of resources underlying areas unavailable for leasing but with remnant existing leases 

would require substantial mitigation, or these resources would require offsite development actions such as 

directional drilling, and there would consequently be an increase in development costs. Leased 

hydrocarbon resources located beyond the technical or economic reach of directional drilling would be 

considered inaccessible and therefore unrecoverable. 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 3. 

The 5,209 wells (federal minerals) projected under this alternative would potentially extract 16,730 BCF 

of natural gas and 130 million barrels of oil during the life of the plan, which is a 28% reduction in the 

projected number of wells and an 18% reduction in the projected gas and oil volume from the unrestricted 

4-64 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

estimates. Approximately 67,210 acres would be available for intensive fluid mineral leasing, exploration, 

development, and production; approximately 420,780 acres would be designated Traditional Leasing 

Areas and would be available for restricted fluid mineral leasing, exploration, development, and 

production; and 723,200 acres would be unavailable for leasing, exploration, development, and 

production. Existing leased in-holdings in this latter category would be available for exploration, 

development, and production as prescribed in the lease contract. 

Cultural resource management actions would require that approximately 4,080 acres of federal mineral 

estate within communal big game kill sites, Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, select rock 

alignments, rock art sites, and Native American burial locales and TCP sites, as well as within 1 mile of 

the Lander Trail and the Sublette Cutoff Trail (65,670 acres), would be unavailable for leasing and 

geophysical exploration. (Note: Geophysical exploration could legally be conducted on any existing lease 

within these areas.) These areas would also be encumbered by NSO restrictions. Because the designation 

as unavailable for leasing and geophysical exploration is a more stringent measure than an NSO 

restriction, the impacts on the fluid mineral resource would be based on the more stringent restriction. 

Accordingly, federal mineral resources (fluid) within the areas unavailable for leasing would be 

unrecoverable and consequently would not be available to contribute toward the national demand for fluid 

mineral products. Development potential for CBNG on these sites/areas varies from no potential for sites 

and trail segments along the Wind River Front to a very high potential for sites and trail segments in the 

South Piney Creek area on the Wyoming Range Front. Non-CBNG development potential varies from 

low along the Wind River Front to high along the crest of the Pinedale Anticline. The leasing availability 

would not apply to or affect existing, valid leases, but would apply when new leases are issued. The NSO 

restriction could impact postlease actions (APDs, ROWs, and geophysical Notices of Intent [NOIs]), 

unless imposition of the restriction would deprive the leaseholders of their legal right to develop any 

existing leases in the restriction area. Where the NSO restriction is applied, fluid mineral development 

would require offsite (directional drilling) techniques. Leasable mineral resources beyond the technical or 

economic reach of offsite methods would become unrecoverable. There would be a potential for an 

unrecoverable loss of federally owned hydrocarbon resources where unleased federal mineral estates 

adjoin private or state mineral estates. 

The 6-mile-wide VRM Class II designation (169,570 acres) for the Lander Trail would potentially affect 

well pad, production facility, road, and pipeline placement within this corridor to meet the VRM Class II 

objectives. Where the terrain does not provide visual screening of mineral development facilities from the 

viewpoint of the trail, those facilities could be required to be located outside the VRM Class II buffer or 

in visually screened areas within the buffer. Fluid mineral resources beyond the reach of offsite 

development techniques would be unrecoverable. Impacts related to an unrecoverable loss of federal 

mineral resources because of drainage from nonfederal leaseholds would be the same as previously 

described. 

Under this alternative, paleontological and natural history resource management prescriptions would 

result in the same impacts as under Alternative 1. 

Recreation management strategies that set a one-half-mile NSO area around developed recreational sites 

would preclude leasable minerals development on approximately 2,760 acres (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). 

Extraction of underlying hydrocarbon resources would require more expensive and higher risk offsite 

techniques such as directional drilling. Leasable mineral resources beyond the technical or economic 

reach of offsite methods would become unrecoverable. The hydrocarbon development potential for 

developed recreation areas is as follows. Warren Bridge (110 acres) and Upper Green River campgrounds 

(all sites in Upper Green River SRMA acreage) have a low potential for non-CBNG development and a 

very low potential for CBNG development. Boulder Lake/Boulder Lake Boat Ramp/Stokes Crossing 

(1,370 acres) has low to no potential for non-CBNG development and very low to no potential for CBNG 

Pinedale RMP 4-65 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

development. New Fork campground (470 acres) has a low potential for non-CBNG development and a 

very low potential for CBNG development. For both CBNG and non-CBNG, Huston Boat Access (450 

acres) has a low development potential, Fear Boat Access (180 acres) has a moderate development 

potential, and Scab Creek campground (130 acres) has no development potential. 

The restriction prohibiting geophysical vehicle travel within one-quarter mile of developed sites would 

potentially cause geophysical operators to skip data collection in these areas, which would degrade the 

quality of the subsurface data both from the sites and from up to a mile radius around the sites. This 

restriction would not preclude nonvehicular geophysical-based methods. 

The Green and New Fork River SRMA (118,550 acres) would be unavailable for mineral leasing. The 

impacts would be the same as previously described for areas unavailable for leasing. The CBNG 

development potential for the Green and New Fork River SRMA would vary from low on the New Fork 

River and the Upper Green River to moderate on the Green River portion located south of Big Piney. The 

non-CBNG development potential would be moderate to high for the New Fork River segments near the 

Pinedale Anticline and low to moderate for the Green River portion. Vehicle-based geophysical 

operations would be restricted to designated roads and trails. This could result in degraded subsurface 

data if large areas are skipped, it or would necessitate the use of more expensive data collection methods 

that do not require vehicles. 

In the event that portions of an SRMA require reclassification to offset drainage or for other reasons, the 

converted area would be managed according to the objectives and management actions used for 

Traditional Leasing Areas, as described in Chapter 2. Impacts on mineral development would be the same 

as those described for Traditional Leasing Areas. 

Existing leases within the SRMAs could be developed under the lease terms. Postlease actions could be 

encumbered by additional seasonal or surface use restrictions or could be subject to project relocation, 

depending on surface resource values, a site-specific NEPA analysis, and the management actions 

prescribed in the RMP, provided those prescriptions do not preclude leaseholders from legally developing 

their lease. The impact of seasonal restrictions (e.g., winter range, sage-grouse/raptor nesting) would be 

the same as under Alternative 1. Project relocation impacts would be the same as those described above 

for similar actions. 

Soils management actions would be implemented to limit erosion. There would be special emphasis on 

sensitive/highly erosive soils throughout the planning area and especially in the Ross Butte, Milleson 

Draw, Blue Rim, Long Island Watershed, and Red Canyon areas. Surface disturbance would be restricted 

on all slopes greater than 25% (124,030 acres) and would be prohibited on sensitive soils with slopes 

having inclines greater than 8%. The impacts on leasable minerals development from the 25% slope 

restriction would be the same as those described in the soils and watershed impact discussion under 

Alternative 1. As with slopes greater than 25%, mineral development on sensitive soils with slopes 

greater than 8% would necessitate the use of offsite development techniques. Fluid mineral resources in 

areas beyond the technical and economic capabilities of the offsite methods would be considered 

unrecoverable. The Milleson Draw, Blue Rim, and Long Island Watershed areas have very low to low 

CBNG development potential and low to moderate non-CBNG development potential. Red Canyon has a 

very low rating for CBNG development potential and moderate for non-CBNG development potential. 

Geophysical operators would be restricted to nonvehicle-based methods on slopes greater than 25% and 

on slopes greater than 15% where sensitive soils occur. 

With the exception of the Red Dugway Road closures, the OHV closures discussed in Section 4.12 

(Transportation, Access, and Travel Management) correspond with areas unavailable for leasing. The 

OHV designation would create no greater impacts on mineral development than those already discussed 

4-66 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

for lands unavailable for leasing. The Red Dugway closure would not impact leasable minerals 

development because the Red Dugway Road already has slides and slumps that preclude heavy truck 

traffic, and current leaseholders have therefore secured alternate access across private land. 

Vegetation management would require that known Special Status Plant Species locations (930 acres) be 

closed to surface-disturbing activities (including geophysical exploration); surface disturbance would be 

prohibited on potential habitat for Special Status Plant Species; and noxious weed control would be 

limited to biological or mechanical methods. Other vegetation management would be the same as under 

Alternative 1. With the exception of impacts related to weed control and geophysical operations, the 

impacts from Special Status Plant Species protection and vegetation management actions would be the 

same as those described in Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Biological weed treatments are not as 

readily available and typically are not as fast acting as chemical treatments. Mechanical methods of weed 

control are time and labor intensive, which limits the achievable volume of treatment. The prohibition on 

the use of chemical treatment for noxious weed control would potentially decrease treatment effectiveness 

and increase control costs. Closing Special Status Plant Species habitats to geophysical vehicles could 

cause geophysical operators to skip data collection in these areas, which would degrade the quality of the 

subsurface data collected both from the sites and from up to a mile radius around the sites. 

Under this alternative, VRM classifications (Map 2-22) would be the most restrictive to mineral 

development in the planning area because approximately 44% of the land would be categorized as VRM 

Class I (21,290 acres) and VRM Class II (393,260 acres). Approximately 56% of the land would be 

categorized as VRM Class III (225,830 acres) and VRM Class IV (282,300 acres). As discussed in the 

Alternative 1 impact section, VRM Class II management requires a high degree of screening to ensure 

that man-made intrusions do not attract the attention of the casual observer. Where this degree of 

screening cannot be achieved, the intrusion would potentially not be allowed and, in the case of leasable 

minerals, the hydrocarbon resource would not be recoverable. The expansion of VRM Class I and Class II 

areas would result in a 300% increase in acreage that would largely be unavailable for mineral 

development. 

Much of the VRM Class II area would overlap the Wind River Front MA, where there is little or no 

development potential. However, the VRM Class II area would expand into known areas of hydrocarbon 

production on the Pinedale Anticline along the New Fork River and the Lander Trail, and it would also 

expand into known zones of oil and gas production along the Lander Trail in the Deer Hills and South 

Piney Creek Canyon area. The VRM Class II management requirements could impact postlease actions 

(APDs, ROWs, and geophysical NOIs), unless imposition of the restriction would deprive the 

leaseholders of their legal right to develop any existing leases in the restriction area. Where it is necessary 

to use offsite (directional drilling) techniques to meet the VRM Class II objectives, both product recovery 

cost and drilling risk would increase. Leasable mineral resources beyond the technical or economic reach 

of offsite methods would become unrecoverable. Substantial areas would potentially be beyond the 

economic or technical reach for directional drilling, and the underlying fluid mineral resources would be 

unrecoverable. Under this alternative, the VRM Class III and Class IV related impacts would be the same 

as under Alternative 1. 

Water quality and watershed management actions would prescribe that no new permanent facilities would 

be allowed in flood plains, perennial or intermittent watercourses, or in wetland/riparian areas, which 

would lead to the relocation of oil and gas facilities outside these areas (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). The buffer 

zones protecting wetland/riparian area and flood plains would be expanded to one-quarter mile. This 

would result in an approximate 260% increase in the acreage affected by the restriction. Oil and gas 

reserves underlying areas beyond the viable reach of offsite development methods would be 

unrecoverable. 

Pinedale RMP 4-67 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

Oil and gas management actions would divide the planning area into three noncontiguous wildlife 

management areas: Intensively Developed Fields (78,270 acres), Traditional Leasing Areas (500,840 

acres), and Unavailable Areas (641,820 acres). Collective management actions under each of the areas 

would impact leasable minerals development. The management prescriptions for the Intensively 

Developed Fields would have the least impact on mineral leasing and development, whereas the 

objectives and prescriptions for the Unavailable Areas would be the most constraining. Specific impacts 

will be addressed by management category. Only those wildlife management actions listed in Chapter 2 

that actually impact mineral leasing or development are addressed below. 

Intensively Developed Fields 

Limiting vehicle use to existing roads and trails would not measurably impact mineral development. 

Restricting field access on crucial big game winter range to two year-round routes would congest traffic, 

concentrate dust and vehicle emissions, increase safety concerns, increase the overall time required to 

drill wells and to complete the development of fields because of traffic delays, and increase the hazard to 

wildlife species crossing these concentrated access routes. 

Given the availability of noise reduction equipment and the latitude provided to an operator to implement 

noise reduction restrictions, the impact on mineral development could be minimal. If, however, such 

equipment is not available and an operator cannot commence operations without it, field development 

delays would occur. 

If minimizing impacts on big game during migration resulted in seasonal restrictions during the migration 

period, field development delays would occur and the overall period of development impact would be 

lengthened. Although there could be minor development delays, overall impacts would be minimal if the 

development could occur away from the areas with the most concentrated migration activity. 

Impacts on mineral development from seasonal restrictions for greater sage-grouse nesting and brood 

rearing, big game parturition and crucial winter range, and raptor nesting protection could be avoided 

through project design and implementation criteria. Examples of these criteria are concentrating seasonal 

activity away from the more heavily used nesting, brood-rearing, parturition, and winter habitat areas; 

enhancing noise reduction; implementing strict traffic controls; stockpiling supplies at sites during 

noncrucial periods to reduce supply-related traffic; and enclosing the rig to control offsite lighting and 

noise. Some of these design features, such as enclosing the rig, come with their own impacts, such as 

possibly rendering a project uneconomical. In situations where the design features are not sufficient and 

the seasonal restrictions are invoked, the impacts would be the same as those identified under Alternative 

1. As previously stated, the development potential on the seasonal habitats varies from no potential for 

CBNG and non-CBNG along the Wind River Front to high potential for CBNG in the South Piney/Fish 

Creek area and high potential for non-CBNG on the Mesa and Riverside portions of the Pinedale 

Anticline. The Big Piney/LaBarge CAP area is identified as having a moderate potential for both CBNG 

and non-CBNG development. The moderate potential designation means this area is expected to have a 

development rate of between 20 and 80 wells per township between 2001 and 2020. (Compare the 

wildlife seasonal restriction Map 2-3 to Maps 4-1 and 4-2.) The impacts from sensitive species 

management would be the same as those described in Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

The management actions under Wildlife Objective 5—to disallow exceptions to timing and distance 

stipulations—could result in drill hole failure and possible production loss if an operator were required to 

suspend drilling operations because of timing and/or distance restrictions at a point where the drill hole 

could be at risk, such as before setting the surface casing, between setting the surface casing and setting 

the intermediate casing (if intermediate casing is used), or between setting the intermediate casing and 

4-68 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

setting the production casing (or between setting the surface casing and production casing if intermediate 

casing is not used). It would also prolong the overall time a rig would occupy the source habitat. 

Condensate- and produced water-gathering systems are suitable for some fields or portions of fields, but 

not for all fields or all wells. The requirement to implement fluid (condensate and produced water) 

gathering systems involves much more than just installing extra pipelines to each well pad; it also 

involves central delivery points or collection manifolds, stabilization plants, condensate sale lines that run 

to processing terminals or refineries, and water disposal sites capable of handling the water volume. 

Collectively, these project components could cause some wells to become uneconomic. In addition, 

depending on pipe system pressure, some wells may need an on-location pump running constantly to 

pump the condensate or water into the pipe system. In these cases, pump monitoring and maintenance 

would increase traffic to the well pad. 

Migratory bird exclusion devices such as netting on pits would increase the shading effect on the pit and 

could substantially increase the amount of time needed to evaporate the fluid, therefore lengthening the 

time the pit and well pad are not reclaimed. Snow loads on pit netting can collapse the net into the fluids, 

making it ineffective as a bird exclusion device. 

Traditional Leasing Areas 

The greater sage-grouse lek NSO restriction would expand to a 1-mile radius and would preclude human 

presence from March 1 through May 15 (Table 4-3, p. 4-60). Fluid mineral development would require 

offsite methods, and resources beyond the technical and economic capabilities of the offsite method 

would become unavailable for public use. Existing leases within the NSO area could be developed under 

the lease terms. Postlease actions could be encumbered by additional seasonal or surface use restrictions 

or could be subject to project relocation, depending on surface resource values, a site-specific NEPA 

analysis, and the management actions prescribed in the RMP, provided those prescriptions do not 

preclude leaseholders from legally developing their lease. Leks are scattered throughout the planning 

area, and the development potential is equally broad. 

In addition, an NSO restriction would be applied to all suitable nesting habitat within 3 miles of active 

leks (Table 4-3, p. 4-60). This would directly impact fluid mineral development on 582,280 acres. Fluid 

mineral development would require offsite methods, and resources beyond the technical and economic 

capabilities of the offsite method would become unavailable for public use. If the entire 3-mile zone is 

suitable nesting habitat, this restriction would impact hydrocarbon recovery. Existing leases within the 

NSO area could be developed under the lease terms. The hydrocarbon development potential within 3 

miles of the leks varies from low to high for both CBNG and non-CBNG development, with less than 1% 

in areas with very high hydrocarbon potential, and 6% in areas of high hydrocarbon potential. The 

remaining 93% of the 3-mile NSO restriction is within areas of moderate to low potential for 

hydrocarbon. 

Surface disturbance and disruptive activities would be prohibited within 3 miles of active leks from 

March 15 through July 15. This would potentially prohibit well completion and well maintenance actions 

on existing wells within 3 miles of those active leks during the restriction period. This would prolong the 

time to fully develop a field, which in turn would prolong the period that development operations occupy 

wildlife habitats. 

The impacts from prohibiting surface disturbance on all greater sage-grouse winter concentration habitat; 

limiting well pad development to one well pad per section in greater sage-grouse habitat; and allowing 

NSO on crucial big game winter range habitat within big game migration routes and bottlenecks, or 

within 1,000 feet of active raptor nests (1,400 feet for ferruginous hawks), would directly affect oil and 

Pinedale RMP 4-69 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

gas leasing and development. As stated previously, fluid mineral development in these NSO areas would 

require offsite methods, and resources beyond the technical and economic capabilities of the offsite 

method would become unavailable for public use. Existing leases within the NSO area could be 

developed under the lease terms. The impact of the one-pad-per-section restriction on oil and gas 

development could be lessened by implementing exceptions to meet WOGCC spacing requirements. The 

hydrocarbon development potential of these NSO areas varies from low to high for both CBNG and nonCBNG development. 

The impacts associated with requiring noise reduction, placing a limitation on the number of year-round 

access routes allowed, not granting seasonal exceptions, and implementing bird exclusion devices for pits, 

would be the same as those described previously for Intensively Developed Fields. 

The impacts of the big game parturition (May 1 through June 30) and the raptor seasonal restrictions 

(February 1 through July 31) would be the same as those under Alternative 1. The development potential 

in big game parturition habitat varies from very low to high for CBNG and is moderate for non-CBNG. 

Similar to greater sage-grouse leks, raptor nesting habitat occurs throughout the planning area; 

consequently, the development potentials of these raptor nesting habitat areas would be as diverse as the 

development potentials of lek areas. 

The impacts from Special Status Species would the same as those described in Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives. 

The impacts and development potential associated with white-tailed prairie dog management actions 

would be the same as those described later for the White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC. 

Requiring delays in surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities until wildlife activity is completed, 

where there are newly identified sensitive wildlife or aquatic species activities, would impact mineral 

development by prolonging the overall time required to develop oil and gas fields and therefore would 

prolong development activity on wildlife habitats. 

Unavailable Areas 

The federal mineral estate in this category (641,820 acres) would be indefinitely unavailable for mineral 

leasing. The impacts would be the same as those previously described for Unavailable Areas. 

Specifically, any underlying fluid mineral resources would be excluded from extraction and would not be 

available for public use or revenue generation, except with the existing leases, which encompass 325,290 

acres. The Unavailable Areas are spread throughout the planning area, and their development potentials 

vary from no potential for CBNG and non-CBNG along the Wind River Front, to low potential for CBNG 

near Ross Butte, to moderate potential for non-CBNG in the Bench Corral and Ryegrass areas. The 

Unavailable Areas also contain or adjoin portions of private or state mineral estates. Mineral extraction 

from these nonfederal areas could result in drainage of federal hydrocarbon resources, which would 

constitute an irretrievable loss of resource. 

Existing leases within the Unavailable Area could be developed under the lease terms. Postlease actions 

could be encumbered by additional seasonal or surface use restrictions or could be subject to project 

relocation, depending on surface resource values, a site-specific NEPA analysis, and the management 

actions prescribed in the RMP, provided those prescriptions do not preclude leaseholders from legally 

developing their lease. The impact of seasonal restrictions (e.g., winter range, sage-grouse/raptor nesting) 

would be the same as those described for the corresponding restrictions under Alternative 1. Project 

relocation impacts would be the same as those described above for similar actions. 

4-70 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

The Alternative 3 sections of Tables 2-32 and 2-33 list a one-quarter-mile NSO zone around 

unincorporated municipalities and rural subdivisions (21,410 acres). These zones are scattered throughout 

the planning area. The impacts resulting from this NSO restriction would be the same as those described 

for developed recreational sites. Development potential with these zones varies from low to high for both 

CBNG and non-CBNG. Existing leases would be managed under lease terms and site-specific NEPA 

analysis for postlease actions (APDs, ROWs, and geophysical NOIs). 

Approximately 21,200 acres within the Scab Creek and Lake Mountain WSAs would be closed to OHV 

use and to oil and gas leasing. Refer to the impact discussion in Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

The following three impacts and discussion apply to all of the ACECs and MAs: 

• All of the ACECs or MAs either contain or adjoin portions of private or state mineral estates. 

Mineral extraction from these nonfederal areas could result in drainage of federal hydrocarbon 

resources. This would constitute an irretrievable loss of resource. 

• All of the ACECs and MAs have areas that would be beyond the technical or economic 

capabilities of offsite development methods such as directional drilling, and would therefore have 

areas where the mineral resource would be unavailable for extraction and public use. 

• In the event that portions of an ACEC or MA require reclassification to offset drainage or for 

other reasons, the converted area would be managed under the objectives and management 

actions for Traditional Leasing Areas as described in the Wildlife section of Alternative 3 in 

Chapter 2. Impacts on mineral development would be the same as those described for Traditional 

Leasing Areas. 

Existing leases within an ACEC or MA could be developed under the lease terms. Postlease actions could 

be encumbered by additional seasonal or surface use restrictions or could be subject to project relocation, 

depending on surface resource values, a site-specific NEPA analysis, and the management actions 

prescribed in the RMP, provided those prescriptions do not preclude leaseholders from legally developing 

their lease. The impact of seasonal restrictions (e.g., winter range, sage-grouse/raptor nesting) would be 

the same as those described for corresponding restrictions under Alternative 1. Project relocation impacts 

would be the same as those described above for similar actions. 

The Rock Creek ACEC and Deadline-Graphite elk winter range area (24,990 acres) would not be 

available for leasing or hydrocarbon extraction (Map 2-3). With the exception of eight leases that are held 

by production and that extend into the ACEC/Lake Mountain WSA, the fluid mineral resources in these 

areas would not be available for consumption. Only six of the leases (1,670 acres) predate the passage of 

FLPMA and could sustain some level of development activity. Geophysical exploration would be 

prohibited except on existing leases, where it would occur by nonvehicular methods. The potential for 

development and impacts would be the same as those described for the Scab Creek and Lake Mountain 

WSAs and Rock Creek ACEC in the discussion of Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

The Beaver Creek ACEC would be expanded to 10,160 acres and would be closed to oil and gas leasing 

(Tables 2-32 and 2-33). Existing leases would be allowed to expire and would not be reoffered; however, 

it is important to note that the entire ACEC is currently lease held from expiration by producing wells 

within the Lake Ridge Unit. Operations on future actions, such as APDs, would be precluded on slopes 

greater than 15%. The 15% slope restriction would increase the potential for relocation of well pads, and 

offsite development drilling techniques would have to be employed to extract the underlying hydrocarbon 

resources. This would also increase the potential that hydrocarbon resources would be beyond the current 

directional drilling capability and therefore would be unavailable for public use or revenue generation. 

Pinedale RMP 4-71 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

The hydrocarbon development potential for the Beaver Creek ACEC and the general impact on planning 

area production would be the same as under Alternative 1. Vehicle-based geophysical operations would 

be restricted to designated roads and trails. This could result in degraded subsurface data if large areas are 

skipped, or would necessitate the use of more expensive, nonvehicle-based data collection methods. 

The Ross Butte ACEC (35,670 acres) would be closed to leasing, and existing leases would be allowed to 

expire (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). Surface disturbance associated with postlease actions (i.e., APDs) would 

not be allowed on slopes greater than 10%. Surface use and occupancy would not be allowed on erosive 

soils or areas with sensitive plant species habitat. Impacts would be similar to those described for the 

Beaver Creek ACEC. The hydrocarbon development potential for the Ross Butte ACEC is low to 

moderate for non-CBNG resources and very low to high for CBNG resources. The ACEC would impact 

the hydrocarbon production potential for the planning area. 

The Wind River Front MA would be expanded to 358,400 acres and would include the New Fork 

Potholes ACEC (1,820 acres), the Trapper’s Point ACEC (9,540 acres), the CCC Ponds ACEC (5,530 

acres), the Upper Green River ACEC (12,270 acres), the East Fork River WSR (1,130 acres), the Green 

River WSR (7,100 acres), the Silver Creek WSR (860 acres), and the Scab Creek WSR (1,350 acres). The 

development potential for non-CBNG in the MA varies from low to no potential in the south and east to 

moderate potential in the north and west. The CBNG development potential is low to none (Tables 2-33). 

The federal mineral estate within the area would be unavailable for leasing. Existing leases would be 

allowed to expire. Postlease actions on existing leases prior to lease expiration would be constrained by 

CSU stipulations overall, and by NSO stipulations in the New Fork Potholes ACEC, unless the project at 

issue would specifically enhance wildlife, visual resource, recreation, water quality, or wilderness values. 

The leasing restriction would render the hydrocarbon resource underlying the unleased portion of the 

Wind River Front MA unavailable for extraction and thus unavailable for public use and revenue 

generation. The impact of the CSU and NSO restrictions would be the same as previously discussed. 

Vehicle-based geophysical operations would be prohibited in the WSRs, restricted to designated roads 

and trails in the ACECs, and limited to designated roads and trails in existing leases within the rest of the 

MA. These limitations could result in degraded subsurface data if large areas are skipped, or would 

necessitate the use of more expensive, nonvehicle-based data collection methods. 

The White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC would be open to oil and gas leasing and would be managed as an 

Intensively Developed Field in areas where the development meets the well density criteria. Otherwise, 

lands within the ACEC would be managed as Traditional Leasing Areas. Surface disturbance would be 

prohibited in towns or complexes larger than 12.5 acres. The surface disturbance restriction would 

potentially require fluid mineral development activities to be conducted by higher risk offsite methods 

(i.e., directional drilling). Depending on the size of the town/complex, hydrocarbon resources beyond the 

technical or economic distance of the offsite method would be unrecoverable. Vehicle-based geophysical 

operations would be restricted to designated roads and trails. This could result in degraded subsurface 

data if large areas are skipped, or would necessitate the use of more expensive, nonvehicle-based data 

collection methods. The fluid mineral development potential for CBNG ranges from very low in the 

Jonah Field area to moderate in the LaBarge area. The non-CBNG development potential varies from low 

in the Milleson Draw area to high in the Jonah Field area. 

The Miller Mountain MA (66,440 acres) would be closed to leasing, and existing leases would be allowed 

to expire (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). No net gain in the miles of road would be allowed. Surface disturbance 

would not be allowed on slopes greater than 15%. The impacts from the slope restriction and from closing 

the area to leasing would be similar to those described for the Beaver Creek ACEC. New roads could only 

be developed upon reclamation of existing roads; this restriction would correlate directly with a limitation 

on the number of well pads/wells that could be developed in these areas. Hydrocarbon resources within 

existing leases could be developed by constructing pads adjacent to existing roads, directionally drilling 

4-72 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

from existing pads, or directionally drilling from new pads constructed adjacent to existing roads. The 

impacts associated with directional drilling would the same as previously discussed. Hydrocarbon 

resources in areas beyond the technical or economic reach of directional drilling would be unrecoverable 

and unavailable for public use. The development potential would be very low for CBNG and low for nonCBNG. 

Table 4-8 and Table 4-9 show the percentage of change of lands available for conventional oil and gas 

and CBNG development, respectively, under Alternative 3. 

Table 4-8. Percent Change of Acres Available for Conventional Oil and Gas Development 

Under Alternative 3 

Development 

Potential 

Acres Available1

(Alternative 1) 

Acres Available1

(Alternative 3) 

Percent Change 

(%) 

Very High 34,640 31,330 9 

High 96,360 86,670 10 

Moderate 485,040 248,470 49 

Low 413,570 121,890 71 

No Potential 0 0 0 

1 Acres available are a combination of lands open to leasing with standard lease terms, lands open to leasing 

with minor constraints, and lands open to leasing with major constraints. Lands closed to leasing are not 

included in this table. 

Table 4-9. Percent Change of Acres Available for CBNG Development Under Alternative 3 

Development 

Potential 

Acres Available1

(Alternative 1) 

Acres Available1

(Alternative 3) 

Percent Change 

(%) 

High 19,180 10,200 47 

Moderate 118,880 82,160 31 

Low 136,696 113,580 17 

Very Low 718,870 280,750 61 

No Potential 6,390 860 87 

1 Acres available are a combination of lands open to leasing with standard lease terms, lands open to leasing 

with minor constraints, and lands open to leasing with major constraints. Lands closed to leasing are not 

included in this table. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

A substantial part of the planning area (441,100 acres) would be unavailable for fluid mineral 

development (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). The affects of other management actions would be similar to those 

under Alternative 1. As established above in Impacts Common to All Alternatives, Impacts under 

Alternative 1, and Impacts under Alternative 2, fluid mineral resources underlying lands unavailable to 

leasing and without remnant existing leases would be unrecoverable. Resources underlying areas 

unavailable for leasing but with remnant existing leases would require substantial mitigation or offsite 

development actions such as directional drilling (as long as this does not infringe on lease rights), and 

these areas would experience increased development costs. Leased hydrocarbon resources located beyond 

the technical or economic reach of directional drilling would be considered inaccessible and therefore 

unrecoverable. 

Pinedale RMP 4-73 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

The impact discussion below is in addition to those impacts described in Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives. 

The 7,136 wells (federal minerals) projected under this alternative would potentially extract 19,168 BCF 

of natural gas and 150 million barrels of oil during the life of the plan, which is an 8% reduction in the 

projected number of wells and a 5% reduction in the projected gas and oil volume from the unrestricted 

estimates. Approximately 175,040 acres in Intensively Developed Fields would be available for intensive 

fluid mineral leasing, exploration, development, and production; approximately 461,380 acres designated 

as Traditional Leasing Areas would be available for restricted fluid mineral leasing, exploration, 

development, and production; about 198,370 acres would be designated as NSO; and 439,470 acres 

would be designated as Unavailable Areas for leasing, exploration, development, and production. Existing 

leased in-holdings in NSO areas and Unavailable Areas would be available for exploration, development, 

and production, as granted by the lease contract. 

Cultural resource management actions would impose an NSO restriction on approximately 4,430 acres of 

federal mineral estate within communal big game kill sites, Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, 

rock art sites, select rock alignments, and Native American burial locales and TCP sites. There would also 

be an NSO restriction applied to a one-quarter-mile strip on either side of the Lander Trail and to a 1-

mile-wide strip on either side of the Sublette Cutoff Trail (23,000 total acres). The development potential 

would be the same as under Alternative 3. Development of the mineral resource in the NSO areas above 

would require offsite methods. Impacts would be the same as those described with the NSO and CSU 

restrictions in Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

The NSO restriction would apply to new leases offered in these areas. It would not directly apply to any 

existing lease within the NSO boundary, but could impact postlease actions (APDs, ROWs, and 

geophysical NOIs) unless imposition of the restriction would deprive the leaseholders of their legal right 

to develop any existing leases in the restriction area. Where the NSO restriction is applied, fluid mineral 

development would require offsite (directional drilling) techniques. Leasable mineral resources beyond 

the technical or economic reach of offsite methods would be considered unrecoverable. There would be a 

potential for the unrecoverable loss of federally owned hydrocarbon resources where unleased federal 

mineral estates adjoin private or state mineral estates. Geophysical exploration within Native American 

TCP areas and within one-quarter mile of rock art sites would be restricted to designated roads and trails 

or to the use of nonvehicular methods. (Note: Geophysical exploration could legally be conducted on any 

existing leases within these areas.) Vehicle-based geophysical operations would be restricted to 

designated roads and trails. This could result in degraded subsurface data if large areas are skipped or 

would necessitate the use of more expensive, nonvehicle-based data collection methods. 

The proposed 6-mile-wide VRM Class II designation for contributing segments of the Lander Trail would 

potentially affect well pad, production facility, road, and pipeline placement within this corridor to meet 

the VRM Class II objectives. Where the terrain does not provide visual screening of mineral development 

facilities from the viewpoint of the trail, those facilities could be required to be located either entirely 

outside the VRM Class II buffer zone or in visually screened areas within the buffer. Fluid mineral 

resources beyond the reach of offsite development would have the same impact as described above. The 

impacts related to an unrecoverable loss of federal mineral resources because of drainage from nonfederal 

leaseholds would be the same as previously described. This would not apply to existing leases, but could 

apply to postlease actions. 

The impact on leasable minerals development resulting from paleontology and natural history prescribed 

actions would be the same as under Alternative 3. 

4-74 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

Under this alternative, management of developed recreational sites relative to leasable minerals 

development would be essentially the same as under Alternative 2; therefore, the impact would be the 

same. The Boulder Lake (5,790 acres) and Scab Creek (18,460) SRMAs would fall within the Wind River 

Front MA and would be unavailable for mineral leasing. Impacts for these SRMAs would be the same as 

under Alternative 3. The CCC Ponds area would be unavailable for mineral leasing; therefore, the impact 

would be the same as under Alternative 3. 

The Upper Green River SRMA and the Green and New Fork River SRMA would be available for mineral 

leasing with an NSO restriction. The impacts of this NSO restriction on new leases or on the management 

of existing leases within a new NSO area would be the same as those described for similar actions in the 

preceding impact analysis (i.e., offsite development on new leases and potential offsite development on 

existing leases unless it precludes a leaseholder’s/operator’s grant right to explore, develop, and produce 

the fluid mineral resource). 

Soils management would be essentially the same as under Alternative 3, except that surface disturbance 

operations could be conducted on sensitive soils with slopes greater than 8%. Under this alternative, the 

impacts on sensitive soils would be greater than under Alternative 3, because operations could be 

conducted on slopes between 8% and 15%. The 25% slope restriction for construction would be retained 

for nonsensitive soils. 

The OHV closures discussed in the Transportation section correspond with areas unavailable for leasing. 

The OHV designation would create no greater impacts on mineral development than those already 

discussed for lands unavailable for leasing. The Red Dugway OHV limitation would not impact leasable 

minerals development because the Red Dugway Road already contains slides and slumps that preclude 

heavy truck traffic, and current leaseholders have therefore secured alternate access across private land. 

Under this alternative, vegetation management relative to mineral management would be essentially the 

same as under Alternative 3. The only notable difference is that this alternative would allow chemicals to 

be used to treat noxious weeds. Except for the discussion specific to the preclusion of chemical 

treatments, the impact of vegetation management on mineral development would be the same as under 

Alternative 3. Allowing the use of chemical along with mechanical and biological methods provides 

leaseholders and operators with a more complete and effective weed treatment package. 

Under this alternative, VRM classifications (Map 2-30) would be more restrictive than under Alternatives 

1 and 2 but less restrictive than under Alternative 3. Approximately 28% of the planning area would be 

categorized as VRM Class I (21,290 acres) and Class II (239,520 acres), and the other 72% would be 

categorized as VRM Class III (419,410 acres) and Class IV (242,660 acres). As discussed under 

Alternative 1, VRM Class II management requires a high degree of screening to ensure that man-made 

intrusions do not attract the attention of the casual observer. Where this level of screening cannot be 

achieved, the intrusion would potentially not be allowed, and in the case of leasable minerals, the 

hydrocarbon resource would not be recovered. 

The VRM Class I and II areas would be largely unavailable for mineral development. Much of the VRM 

Class II area overlaps the Unavailable Areas, which have little or no development potential. However, the 

VRM Class II area includes known areas of hydrocarbon production on the Pinedale Anticline along the 

New Fork River and the Lander Trail, and it also expands into known areas of oil and gas production 

along the Lander Trail in the Deer Hills and South Piney Creek Canyon area. The VRM Class II 

management requirements could impact postlease actions (APDs, ROWs, and geophysical NOIs), unless 

imposition of the restrictions would deprive the leaseholders of their legal right to develop any existing 

leases in the restriction area. Where meeting the Class II objective necessitates the use of offsite 

(directional drilling) techniques, both product recovery cost and drilling risk would increase. Leasable 

Pinedale RMP 4-75 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

mineral resources beyond the technical or economic reach of offsite methods would become 

unrecoverable. Substantial areas would potentially be beyond the economic or technical reach of 

directional drilling, and the underlying fluid mineral resources would be unrecoverable. The VRM Class 

III and Class IV related impacts would be the same as under Alternative 1. 

Under this alternative, water quality and watershed management actions would basically be the same as 

under Alternative 3, and thus the impact on mineral development would be the same. 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions divide the planning area into four noncontiguous wildlife 

management zones: Intensively Developed Fields (175,040 acres), Traditional Leasing Areas (461,380 

acres), and Unavailable Areas (439,470 acres). Collective management actions under each of the zones 

would impact leasable minerals development. The management prescriptions for the Intensively 

Developed Fields would have the least impact on mineral leasing and development, whereas the 

objectives and prescriptions for the Unavailable Areas would be the most constraining. Specific impacts 

will be addressed by management category. Only those wildlife management actions listed in Chapter 2 

that actually impact mineral leasing or development are addressed below. 

Intensively Developed Fields 

Permitted OHV activities would be allowed in Intensively Developed Fields; consequently, there would 

be no OHV impact on fluid mineral development in these areas. 

Fluid mineral development would be required to minimize the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on 

greater sage-grouse, big game migration, and big game parturition habitats through project design and 

implementation of performance-based mitigation and stipulations. This would potentially impact fluid 

mineral development; however, the magnitude of the impact would depend on the design and 

implementation criteria and on any mitigation required at the implementation stage. Impacts could range 

from project relocation and offsite development, to seasonal timing limitations, to limiting facilities or 

beyond. These impacts could affect the economic or technical viability of the project. 

The impact of the proposed NSO designations for elk feedgrounds and the potential for fluid mineral 

development would be the same as under Alternative 1. Impacts of the proposed NSO designation for 

raptors would be the same as described under Alternative 3. Impacts of the proposed seasonal restrictions 

would be the same as those under Alternative 1. 

The impacts related to noise reduction would be the same as those described in the mineral development 

discussion under Alternative 3. 

The impacts from sensitive species management would be the same as those described in Impacts 

Common to All Alternatives. 

The impacts of required raptor surveys would be the same as the impacts of the required surveys for 

sensitive species described in Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

The impacts related to fluid gathering systems and migratory bird exclusion devices for pits would be the 

same as under Alternative 3. 

Traditional Leasing Areas 

The restriction limiting vehicular activities to existing roads and trails in greater sage-grouse habitats 

during the active lek, nesting/brood-rearing, and winter concentration periods, as well as in crucial big 

game winter ranges, would have minimal effect on fluid mineral development. Geophysical operations 

4-76 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

would be restricted during the 5-month window where greater sage-grouse habitats occur. This would 

prolong the number of seasons needed to complete a development project and could deprive a 

leaseholder/operator of timely subsurface data. 

The Upper Green River migration bottleneck (1,160 acres) would be available for fluid mineral leasing 

with an NSO stipulation. The impacts and existing lease management would be the same as those 

described for the 1-mile NSO restriction in the Traditional Leasing Areas under Alternative 3. The Upper 

Green River migration bottleneck has a very low potential for CBNG development and a moderate 

potential for non-CBNG development. 

Fluid mineral development would be required to protect crucial big game winter range, migration, and 

parturition; greater sage-grouse nesting/brood rearing; sensitive species; sagebrush obligate; and raptor 

habitats, through project design and implementation of performance-based mitigation and stipulations. 

This requirement would potentially impact fluid mineral development; however, the magnitude of the 

impact would depend on the design and implementation criteria and on any mitigation required at the 

implementation stage. Impacts could range from project relocation and offsite development, to seasonal 

timing limitations, to limitations on facilities, to some fluid mineral resources becoming unavailable for 

extraction. These impacts could affect the economic or technical viability of some projects. 

Surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities would be prohibited within 2 miles of active leks from 

March 15 through July 15. The impact would be the same as that described for greater sage-grouse 

nesting and brood rearing under Alternative 1. 

The impacts associated with protecting large, contiguous patches of sagebrush with an NSO stipulation 

would be the same as those described for the 1-mile NSO restriction in the Traditional Leasing Areas 

under Alternative 3. This restriction would result in hydrocarbon resources becoming unavailable for 

public use. 

The impacts of the proposed NSO designations on elk feedgrounds and the potential for fluid mineral 

development would be the same as under Alternative 1. 

The impacts of big game parturition (May 1 through June 30) and raptor nesting seasonal restriction 

(February 1 through July 31), as well as the impacts of the crucial big game winter range seasonal 

restrictions, would be the same as under Alternative 1. 

The impacts on Special Status Species would the same as those described in Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives. 

The impacts related to noise reduction would be the same as those described for mineral development 

under Alternative 3. 

The impacts from sensitive species management would be the same as those described in Impacts 

Common to All Alternatives. 

The impacts of the NSO restriction within 1,000 feet of raptor nests (1,400 feet of ferruginous hawks) 

would be the same as those described above for the 1-mile greater sage-grouse lek NSO area under the 

Traditional Leasing Areas section in Alternative 3. Impacts of the seasonal restrictions for raptors would 

also be the same as described under the Traditional Leasing Areas section in Alternative 3. 

The impacts on required raptor surveys would be the same as the impacts of the required surveys for 

sensitive species described in Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

Pinedale RMP 4-77 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

The impacts related to fluid gathering systems and migratory bird exclusion devices for pits would be the 

same as under Alternative 3. 

The impacts associated with white-tailed prairie dog management actions would be same as those 

described for the White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC under Alternative 3. 

The impacts of limiting surface disturbance in CRCT habitat between June 1 and August 15 could affect 

some creek crossings for roads and pipelines along the east front of the Wyoming Range, but this 

limitation is not anticipated to have a major impact on mineral development, because there are already a 

number of upgraded roads across the streams in this area. Pipeline installation could be completed by 

boring under the streams. 

Tables 2-32 and 2-33 in the Alternative 4 section in Chapter 2 lists an NSO restriction for unincorporated 

municipalities and rural subdivisions (21,410 acres), which are scattered throughout the planning area. 

The impacts from this restriction would be the same as those described for developed recreational sites. 

The development potential with these sites varies from low to high for both CBNG and non-CBNG. 

Existing leases would be managed under lease terms and site-specific NEPA analysis for postlease actions 

(APDs, ROWs, and geophysical NOIs). 

Appendix 3 states that surface-disturbing activities may be prohibited within one-quarter mile of occupied 

dwellings. This would require conducting leasable minerals development actions from locations outside 

of this restricted area. Offsite development would likely require methods such as directional drilling, 

providing the offsite method is technically and economically feasible. An indirect impact of this 

requirement would be that offsite methods typically have higher failure rates, drilling problem rates, and 

development costs than vertical onsite drilling (see Impacts Common to All Alternatives for additional 

information). 

Unavailable Areas 

The impact on leasable minerals development in the Unavailable Areas would be the same as under 

Alternative 3. However, there would be 206,690 fewer acres designated as Unavailable for leasing under 

Alternative 4, and consequently, the magnitude of the impact on leasable minerals would be 

commensurately lower under Alternative 4. 

The following three impacts and discussion apply to all of the ACECs and MAs discussed below: 

• All of the ACECs or MAs either contain or adjoin portions of private or state mineral estates. 

Mineral extraction from these nonfederal areas could result in drainage of federal hydrocarbon 

resources. This would constitute an irretrievable loss of resource. 

• All of the ACECs and MAs have areas that would be beyond the technical or economic 

capabilities of offsite development methods such as directional drilling, and would therefore have 

areas where the mineral resource would be unavailable for extraction and public use. 

• In the event that portions of an ACEC or MA require reclassification to offset drainage or for 

other reasons, the converted area would be managed under the objectives and management 

actions for the Traditional Leasing Areas, as described in the Wildlife section of Alternative 3 in 

Chapter 2. Impacts on mineral development would be the same as those described for Traditional 

Leasing Areas. 

Existing leases with an ACEC or a MA could be developed under the lease terms. Postlease actions could 

be encumbered by additional seasonal or surface use restrictions or could be subject to project relocation, 

4-78 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

depending on surface resource values, a site-specific NEPA analysis, and the management actions 

prescribed in the RMP, provided those prescriptions do not preclude leaseholders from legally developing 

their lease. The impact of seasonal restrictions (e.g., winter range, sage-grouse/raptor nesting) would be 

the same as described for corresponding restrictions under Alternative 1. Project relocation impacts would 

be the same as those described above for similar actions. 

The Rock Creek ACEC (4,960 acres) would not be available for leasing or hydrocarbon extraction. With 

the exception of eight leases held by production and extending into the ACEC/Lake Mountain WSA, the 

fluid mineral resources would not be available for consumption. Only six of the leases predate the passage 

of FLPMA and could sustain some level of development activity. Geophysical exploration would be 

prohibited, except on existing leases and using only nonvehicular methods. The potential for development 

and impacts would be the same as those described for the Scab Creek and Lake Mountain WSAs and the 

Rock Creek ACEC in Impacts Common to All Alternatives. The Deadline-Graphite elk winter range area 

(20,970 acres) would not be managed as part of the Rock Creek ACEC (as it would under Alternative 3). 

The winter range would be managed as under Wildlife Objective 2. Impacts on minerals development 

would be the same as those described for Traditional Leasing Areas under Alternative 4. 

The Beaver Creek ACEC (3,590 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing (Tables 2-32 and 2-33) and 

would be managed essentially the same as under Alternative 1. One minor change would be restricting 

vehicular activity to designated roads and trails under this alternative, whereas under Alternative 1, 

vehicles would be restricted to existing roads and trails. The impacts on mineral development from 

Beaver Creek ACEC management would be the same as under Alternative 1. The difference between 

confining traffic to existing versus designated roads and trails would measurably alter the impacts. Fluid 

mineral development potential would be the same as previously described for the Beaver Creek ACEC. 

Under this alternative, the impacts on mineral development of management objectives and actions for the 

Trapper’s Point (4,160 acres) and New Fork Potholes ACECs would be the same as under Alternative 3. 

Under Alternative 3, Trapper’s Point was a stand-alone ACEC, but it fell within the area encompassed by 

the Wind River Front MA and was included in its impact analysis. Under this alternative, mineral 

development potential for the Trapper’s Point ACEC would be the same as under Alternative 2. The New 

Fork Potholes ACEC would have a very low CBNG development potential and low to moderate nonCBNG development potential. There are no existing leases in the Trapper’s Point ACEC; however, there 

are two existing leases in the New Forks Potholes ACEC. Management of these leases would be the same 

as previously described for existing leases in areas with proposed NSO restrictions or unavailable for 

leasing designations. 

The Ross Butte area (35,670 acres) would be designated as an MA under Alternative 4. The area would 

be available for mineral leasing with an NSO stipulation. The MAs managed under the Large Block NSO 

objectives and actions list the preceding wildlife discussion. Impacts on mineral development and 

management of existing leases would be the same as those listed in the Large Block NSO Areas impact 

discussion. The hydrocarbon development potential for the Ross Butte area is low to moderate for nonCBNG resources and very low to high for CBNG resources. 

Under this alternative, the Wind River Front MA (201,240 acres) would include the East Fork River WSR 

(1,130 acres), the Silver Creek WSR (860 acres), and the Scab Creek WSR (1,350 acres). The MA, 

including the listed WSRs, would be unavailable for fluid mineral leasing. Impacts and management of 

existing leases would be the same as those described for the MA under Alternative 3. (Note: There are no 

existing leases in the WSRs.) The development potential for CBNG and non-CBNG in the MA varies 

from low to no potential (Tables 2-32 and 2-33). 

Pinedale RMP 4-79 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

The Green River WSR (7,100 acres) would be available for leasing with an NSO stipulation. The WSR 

would be closed to geophysical operations unless any impact from such operations could be adequately 

mitigated. The impacts on mineral development from the NSO designation would be the same as 

previously described for NSO areas. The WSR contains existing oil and gas leases. Management of these 

leases would be the same as previously described for existing leases in areas with proposed NSO 

designations or unavailable for leasing designations. 

The CCC Ponds area is not designated as an ACEC or an MA under this alternative. The CCC Ponds area 

would fall within the Wind River Front MA and would be managed under the objectives and actions for 

that MA. The CCC Ponds area would also be managed under the Unavailable Areas designation in the 

Alternative 4 Wildlife section. Impacts on leasable minerals would be the same as those described for the 

Wind River Front MA and Unavailable Areas under Alternative 3. The CCC Ponds area has one existing 

lease, which would be managed the same as previously described for existing leases in areas with 

proposed NSO or unavailable for leasing designations. 

The White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC would not be retained under this alternative. White-tailed prairie dog 

habitat would be managed under Objective 4 in the Wildlife and Fish Habitat section of Chapter 2. 

Surface disturbance would be avoided in towns or complexes larger than 12.5 acres. The surface 

disturbance restriction would potentially require fluid mineral development activities to be conducted by 

higher risk offsite methods (i.e., directional drilling). Depending on the size of the town or complex, 

hydrocarbon resources beyond the technical or economic distance of the offsite method would be 

unrecoverable. Vehicle-based geophysical operations would be restricted to designated roads and trails. 

This could result in degraded subsurface data if large areas are skipped, or would necessitate the use of 

more expensive, nonvehicle-based data collection methods. The fluid mineral development potential 

ranges from very low for CBNG in the Jonah Field area to moderate for CBNG in the LaBarge area. The 

non-CBNG development potential varies from low in the Milleson Draw area to high in the Jonah Field 

area. 

The Miller Mountain MA (66,440 acres) would be available for mineral leasing subject to mitigation 

(Tables 2-32 and 2-33). No net gain in the miles of road would be allowed. Surface disturbance would not 

be allowed on slopes steeper than 15%. The impacts of slope restrictions and of closing the area to leasing 

would be similar to those described for the Beaver Creek ACEC. New roads could only be developed as 

existing roads are reclaimed; this restriction would directly correlate to a limitation on the number of well 

pads/wells that could be developed in these areas. Hydrocarbon resources within existing leases could be 

developed by constructing pads adjacent to existing roads, directionally drilling from existing pads, and 

directionally drilling from new pads constructed adjacent to existing roads. Impacts associated with 

directional drilling would the same as previously discussed. Hydrocarbon resources in areas beyond the 

technical or economic reach of directional drilling would be unrecoverable and unavailable for public use. 

The development potential would be very low for CBNG and low for non-CBNG. 

Table 4-10 and Table 4-11 show the percentage reduction of lands available for conventional oil and gas 

and CBNG development, respectively, under Alternative 4. 

4-80 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

Table 4-10. Percent Change of Acres Available for Conventional Oil and Gas Development 

Under Alternative 4 

Development 

Potential 

Acres Available1

(Alternative 1) 

Acres Available1

(Alternative 4) 

Percent Change 

(%) 

Very High 34,640 34,750 <1 

High 96,360 102,960 7 

Moderate 485,040 363,700 25 

Low 413,570 277,880 33 

No Potential 0 0 0 

1 Acres available are a combination of lands open to leasing with standard lease terms, lands open to leasing 

with minor constraints, and lands open to leasing with major constraints. Lands closed to leasing are not 

included in this table. 

Table 4-11. Percent Change of Acres Available for CBNG Development 

Under Alternative 4 

Development 

Potential 

Acres Available1

(Alternative 1) 

Acres Available1

(Alternative 4) 

Percent Change 

(%) 

High 19,180 19,190 <1 

Moderate 118,880 106,270 11 

Low 136,696 167,110 22 

Very Low 718,870 482,160 33 

No Potential 6,390 3,210 50 

1 Acres available are a combination of lands open to leasing with standard lease terms, lands open to leasing 

with minor constraints, and lands open to leasing with major constraints. Lands closed to leasing are not 

included in this table. 

4.7.2 Locatable Minerals 

Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• The development potential for locatable minerals is low. 

• The administration of locatable minerals and related surface-disturbing activities would involve 

BLM’s cooperation with the WDEQ, as outlined in the current BLM/WDEQ Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) for locatable minerals. The current MOU, dated November 19, 2003, is 

entitled “Supplement to Memorandum of Understanding No. WY-19 between the USDI, BLM, 

and the WDEQ, Land Quality Division, for Management of Surface Mining and Exploration for 

Locatable Minerals on Public Lands.” 

• Unless a withdrawal exists, mining claimants have an inherent right to mine, which cannot be 

revoked by BLM. 

Pinedale RMP 4-81 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources within the 

planning area, reviews of existing literature, and information provided by other agencies. Spatial analysis 

was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 computer software. Effects are quantified where 

possible. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes 

described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate. 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Impacts on locatable minerals resources are not anticipated as a result of implementing management 

actions for livestock grazing and wildland fires. 

Air quality impacts on locatable minerals development would result from cooperation among BLM, 

WDEQ, and EPA to mitigate air quality impacts on a case-by-case basis. An example of possible 

mitigation would be dust control on roads used in mining operations. 

The presence of cultural resources eligible for listing on the NRHP, as well as sites considered sensitive 

by Native Americans, could restrict some locatable minerals exploration or mining activities. The same 

types of impacts could result from locatable minerals activities occurring within the visual setting of 

cultural resources, in cases where the cultural resource’s visual setting contributes to its NRHP eligibility. 

Impacts from lands and realty management would be primarily related to the review and revocation of 

existing withdrawals that segregate against mineral location and/or to the development of new 

withdrawals that would prevent mineral location. New withdrawals could be for a variety of resources 

including cultural, T&E plants or animals, and/or recreation. 

Exploration on mining claims would require that a notice be submitted to BLM for a cumulative surface 

disturbance of 5 acres or less and a plan of operations for exploration greater than 5 acres, as outlined in 

43 CFR §3809. Mining operations, regardless of acreage, require a Plan of Operations. In designated 

SD/MAs (such as an ACEC), a Plan of Operations would be required for any surface-disturbing activities, 

regardless of acreage involved, in accordance with 43 CFR §3809. The requirement for a Plan of 

Operations with an ACEC could result in longer delays for projects than under a notice, even when the 

surface-disturbing activities are less than 5 acres in area. All operations under a Notice or Plan of 

Operations would have to follow the performance standards in 43 CFR §3809.420. 

The discovery of significant paleontological resources could impact the timing or location of locatable 

minerals activities. Significant paleontological resources would include vertebrate fossils, as well as 

scientifically important invertebrate and plant fossils. In most cases, the main impact would be a delay in 

the development of locatable minerals while fossils are collected and recorded. 

There would be vegetation-related impacts on locatable minerals development from Special Status Plant 

Species protection, which could restrict activities. 

Locatable minerals mining activity within established VRM class areas would generally be required to 

conform to the objectives and characteristics of the VRM classification, especially in respect to the 

placement and design of facilities. For example, in VRM Class II areas, the level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be low. In VRM Class II areas, activities may be visible but may not 

attract the attention of the casual observer. In VRM Class III areas, the level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be moderate. The mining area and production facilities may attract 

attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. In VRM Class IV areas, the level of 

4-82 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

change to the characteristic landscape can be high, with activities dominating the view and being the 

major focus of viewer attention. 

Watershed impacts would involve the requirement that locatable minerals activity comply with E.O. 

11988, Floodplain Management, and E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, as well as with the WDEQ’s 

water quality standards. Mining operations would be designed to avoid siltation and pollution of surface 

water and groundwater. Hazardous Spill Response Plans would be required. 

Wildlife and fish management impacts on locatable minerals activities would involve mitigation for 

habitat or potential habitat containing listed, proposed, or candidate T&E species. Relocation or 

prohibition of certain development proposals could be required. 

SD/MA impacts would result from the management plans written for all ACECs. SD/MA management 

prescriptions could cause modification or relocation of development proposals. 

The Lake Mountain (13,490 acres) and Scab Creek (7,710 acres) WSAs would be managed under the 

Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review (USDI 1987b), and 

locatable minerals activity would be governed by the procedures in that policy. Discretionary uses within 

or adjacent to WSAs will be reviewed to ensure that these do not conflict with management and 

preservation of wilderness values. As a result, locatable minerals proposals near the WSAs could be 

restricted. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 1. 

The cultural resources program would require no surface disturbance within one-quarter mile or the visual 

horizon (whichever is closer) on contributing segments of historic trails. Also, three cultural sites would 

be protected by an NSO requirement. Locatable minerals exploration and mining activities may have to 

be modified or restricted to avoid impacting the trail and its setting. 

Impacts from lands and realty management would primarily be from the pursuit of withdrawals in support 

of other resource management objectives. For example, certain cultural and recreational sites would be 

considered for withdrawal. Depending on the results of a study, there could also be a withdrawal pursued 

for the Rock Creek ACEC, covering about 5,270 acres. However, several withdrawals would also be 

revoked under Alternative 1. Phosphate, coal, and oil shale withdrawals would be removed, which would 

allow the location of mining claims in those areas, unless other withdrawals are present. 

Impacts from the paleontology and natural history program would include possible designations to protect 

areas of unique natural history or particular natural interest such as NNLs, RNAs, and ACECs. One 

possible NNL would be the Pinedale Boulder Glacial area located on the east side of the planning area. 

The management prescriptions for these areas could impede development of locatable minerals mining 

activity. 

Recreation management would require no surface disturbance within one-quarter mile of developed and 

semideveloped recreational sites unless the uses are compatible with recreation. Locatable minerals 

development could be restricted, depending on the type and magnitude of the activity. 

Pinedale RMP 4-83 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

Soils management would require mitigating measures to reduce soil erosion, as well as siltation and 

salinity inflow to the Green River Basin. Those measures could restrict exploration and development on 

mining claims. 

Access management could allow more access to locatable areas by obtaining legal access to public land 

across private land. However, roads could be closed as well, thus reducing the ease of prospecting for 

locatable minerals. 

Vegetation management (riparian) would restrict placement of facilities in 100-year flood plains and 

wetland/riparian areas, which could affect locatable minerals development plans. 

VRM classifications would be 21,290 acres in Class I; 73,430 acres in Class II; 187,070 acres in Class III; 

and 641,140 acres in Class IV. Locatable minerals activities would be most restricted in VRM Class I 

areas and least restricted in VRM Class IV areas. Exploration and mining activities, and their associated 

facilities, would be subject to restrictions and/or redesign depending on the area involved and its VRM 

classification. 

Watershed management could impose mitigating measures to reduce soil erosion, as well as siltation and 

salinity inflow to the Green River Basin. Those measures could restrict exploration and development on 

mining claims. No development would be allowed within 500 feet of riparian/wetlands and live water, 

which could affect proposed locatable minerals activities. 

Wildlife and fish management would prohibit activity on and near elk feedgrounds, unless the activity is 

either temporary or compatible with elk habitat management. In certain areas, locatable minerals activity 

could be restricted by this mitigation. Seasonal wildlife restrictions and distance restrictions from various 

wildlife habitat areas would also complicate some locatable minerals activities. 

There could be a possible withdrawal in the Rock Creek drainage area of the Rock Creek ACEC, which 

would prevent locatable minerals development in that area. There would also be a no surface disturbance 

requirement in this area. The Beaver Creek ACEC would contain activity restrictions on steep slopes and 

near streams, which could also affect any potential locatable minerals activity. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 2. 

The impacts from soils and watershed management would be the same as under Alternative 1. 

The cultural program would impact locatable minerals by prohibiting surface occupancy on certain 

cultural sites and prohibiting activity within one-quarter mile of certain historic trails. This could cause 

locatable minerals activities to be restricted in some areas. In terms of specific sites, this alternative would 

probably be less restrictive for locatable minerals than Alternative 1, because Alternative 1 would 

withdraw sites from the Mining Law. 

The lands and realty program would not process the specific withdrawals mentioned under Alternative 1. 

The oil shale, phosphate, and coal withdrawals would remain, which would keep those areas closed to 

certain types of mining claims. Formal withdrawals for cultural sites, recreational sites, and the Rock 

Creek ACEC would not be pursued, making this alternative less restrictive for locatable minerals than 

Alternative 1. However, this alternative would be more restrictive on other withdrawals, because several 

large withdrawals would not be revoked. 

4-84 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

Under this alternative, the paleontology and natural history program would not process designations to 

protect areas of unique natural history or particular natural interest such as NNLs, which would be less 

restrictive than under Alternative 1 and would have less of an impact on locatable minerals development. 

Recreation management impacts would include a one-quarter-mile buffer zone of no surface disturbance 

around developed recreational sites and various restrictions in three SRMAs (Boulder Lake, Scab Creek, 

and Upper Green River). This would impact locatable minerals by limiting development around those 

sites and possibly modifying development proposals for those SRMAs. This would be less restrictive than 

Alternative 1, which would withdraw certain areas from the Mining Law. 

Under this alternative, access management could allow more access to locatable areas by obtaining legal 

access to public land across private land. This would be less restrictive than under Alternative 1, because 

no roads would be closed. 

Under this alternative, vegetation management would require weed control, which could add some costs 

to locatable minerals operations, and would therefore be slightly more restrictive than under Alternative 1. 

However, this alternative would not restrict placement of facilities in 100-year flood plains and 

wetland/riparian areas, which would make it less restrictive overall than Alternative 1. 

Compared to Alternative 1, this alternative would have fewer VRM Class I and Class III areas, and more 

VRM Class II and Class IV areas. Specifically, this alternative would have 0 acres in Class I, versus 

21,290 under Alternative 1; 87,150 acres in Class II, versus 73,430 acres under Alternative 1; 118,390 

acres in Class III, versus 187,070 acres under Alternative 1; and 717,390 acres in Class IV, versus 

641,140 acres under Alternative 1. The percentage increase in VRM Class II acreage (+16%) is offset by 

the percentage decrease in VRM Class I acreage (–100%), the percentage decrease in VRM Class III 

acreage (–36%), and the percentage increase in VRM Class IV acreage (+11%). Overall, this would allow 

larger changes in the visual landscape, which could allow for more locatable minerals development. 

Wildlife and fish management would have temporal and areal restrictions on greater sage-grouse leks, 

nesting areas, and winter concentration areas, and elk feedgrounds would be closed. However, no 

seasonal restrictions would be applied on activities in big game parturition areas, crucial winter ranges, 

and migration routes and bottlenecks. This would allow more year-round locatable minerals activity and 

would be less restrictive than Alternative 1. 

SD/MAs would impact locatable minerals development by restricting certain activities in particular areas. 

Under this alternative, impacts would include a new ACEC (Trapper’s Point—550 acres) and an area of 

1,590 acres outside of the ACEC where activity would be prohibited. However, the Beaver Creek (3,590 

acres) and Rock Creek (5,270 acres) ACECs would be dropped, and thus, based on acreage, this 

alternative would be less restrictive than Alternative 1. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 3. 

Impacts from the paleontology and natural history program, soils management, and wildlife management 

would be the same as under Alternative 1. 

Under this alternative, cultural resources management would write activity plans, prevent surface 

disturbance at various sites through the use of withdrawals, create a VRM Class II area within 3 miles of 

historic trails, and allow no surface disturbance within 1 mile of trails. These measures could affect 

Pinedale RMP 4-85 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

locatable minerals activities by restricting activity in certain areas and would be more restrictive than 

Alternative 2. 

Under this alternative, lands and realty management would process withdrawals for 65,750 acres for 

various resources, which would prevent mining claim location in those areas. No withdrawals would be 

revoked; thus, this alternative would be more restrictive than Alternatives 1 or 2. 

Under this alternative, recreation management would implement a no surface disturbance restriction in an 

area one-half mile from recreational sites and would add an additional SRMA (New Fork River). This 

could cause locatable minerals activities to be restricted in some areas, which would be more restrictive 

than under Alternative 2. 

Under this alternative, access management, in addition to trying to obtain access across private land to 

public land, would also close some areas to motorized vehicles. This could hinder locatable minerals 

development and would be more restrictive than under Alternative 1. 

Under this alternative, vegetation management would withdraw areas of Special Status Plant Species, 

including future discoveries, from locations of mining claims and would prohibit surface-disturbing 

activities that could affect the plants or their habitats. This could restrict locatable minerals mining 

projects and would be more restrictive than under Alternative 1. 

Compared to Alternative 1, under this alternative VRM management would reduce Class IV areas by 56% 

(from 641,140 acres to 282,300 acres) and would increase Class II areas by 436% (from 73,430 acres to 

393,260 acres) and Class III areas by 21% (from 187,070 acres to 225,830 acres). VRM Class I areas 

would remain the same (21,290 acres). This would result in more restrictions on locatable minerals 

development and would be much more restrictive than Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Under this alternative, watershed management impacts would be more restrictive than under Alternatives 

1 and 2, because this alternative would generally restrict disturbances on 100-year flood plains and within 

one-quarter mile of wetland/riparian areas and would specifically prohibit mineral exploration and mining 

within 500 feet of 100-year flood plains, wetland/riparian areas, and perennial streams. It would also 

restrict mining activity within 100 feet of the edge of the inner gorge of intermittent and large ephemeral 

drainages. These actions could restrict locatable minerals activity. This alternative would be more 

restrictive than Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Wildlife and fish management impacts on locatable minerals would be highest under Alternative 3. The 

seasonal greater sage-grouse buffer would be extended from 2 miles to 3 miles, the acreage in winter 

range areas would increase, and parturition areas would cover deer and pronghorn as well as elk. Seasonal 

restrictions on big game migration areas would also be enforced. No exceptions would be granted under 

any of the restrictions mentioned above. Larger buffer areas would be in effect around greater sage-grouse 

leks, elk feedgrounds, and raptor nests. The net effect of these wildlife-related restrictions would be to 

allot less area to and allow less time for any possible locatable minerals development. This would be more 

restrictive than Alternatives 1 and 2. 

SD/MAs would be the most numerous under this alternative. 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, Ross Butte, and CCC Ponds areas (a total of 65,340 acres). The 

Trapper’s Point ACEC would be larger under this alternative (9,540 acres). The Miller Mountain and 

Wind River Front MAs would be established (a total of 424,840 acres). Four river units would be 

managed as suitable for inclusion in the WSR system: East Fork River, Scab Creek, Silver Creek, and 

Upper Green River (a total of 10,440 acres). The following would be withdrawn from locatable minerals 

4-86 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

activity: the New Fork Potholes, Trapper’s Point, Upper Green River, and CCC Ponds ACECs; the 

Boulder Lake and Scab Creek SRMAs; the East Fork River WSR Unit; the Upper Green River big game 

migration bottleneck; the historic Sublette Cutoff Trail; and several sensitive cultural sites. In those areas 

that would not be withdrawn, management prescriptions would impact locatable minerals development as 

is seen, for example, in the Ross Butte’s prescription: “to protect fragile soils and watersheds, sensitive 

plant species, and visual values in the Ross Butte area.” Other SD/MAs would have their own 

prescriptions that could be restrictive to locatable minerals activity. This would be more restrictive than 

Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 4. 

Impacts from the paleontology and natural history program, recreation management, and soils 

management would be the same as those identified for Alternative 1. 

Under this alternative, in cultural resource management, impacts would result from buffer zones of no 

surface disturbance within one-quarter mile of the Lander Trail, which would be expanded along certain 

segments to buffer zones that would have restrictions on activity 1 mile from the trail. For contributing 

segments of the Lander Trail, a VRM Class II designation would be in place within 2 miles of the trail. 

Surface disturbance would be prohibited within 1 mile of the Sublette Cutoff. For some individual 

cultural sites, no surface disturbance would be allowed on or near the site. All of these restrictions would 

limit locatable minerals development in these areas. This would be more restrictive than Alternative 1. 

In lands and realty management, 13,770 acres of new withdrawals from mining claim locations would be 

processed, including withdrawals for some cultural and recreational sites and for protection of wildlife 

habitat. Locatable minerals activities would not occur in those areas. 

Recreation management would prevent substantial surface disturbance from locatable minerals 

development within one-quarter mile of developed recreational sites, which would cause any planned 

development to be relocated. This would be the same restriction as under Alternative 1. 

Access management would close some areas to motorized vehicles and restrict access to designated roads 

in other areas. Approximately 2,500 acres between Silver Creek and Cottonwood Creek would be closed 

from November 15 to January 31. Other seasonal road closures would be possible. These closures would 

restrict possible locatable minerals activities in some areas and may result in relocation of those activities. 

This would be more restrictive than Alternative 1. 

Vegetation management would withdraw both known and discovered locations of Special Status Plant 

Species from mining claim locations, which would preclude locatable minerals activity in those areas. 

This would be more restrictive than Alternative 1. 

Compared to Alternative 1, under this alternative VRM management would keep the same acreage in 

Class I (21,290 acres); increase the acreage in Class II by 226% (from 73,430 acres to 239,520 acres) and 

in Class III by 124% (from 187,070 acres to 419,410 acres); and reduce Class IV acreage by 62% (from 

641,140 acres to 242,660 acres). This would be more restrictive to locatable minerals activity than that 

under Alternative 1, because of the more stringent requirements to mitigate impacts on the visual setting 

under Classes II and III. 

Pinedale RMP 4-87 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

Watershed management would close 100-year flood plains and wetland/riparian areas to new permanent 

facilities. No locatable minerals mining activity would be allowed within 500 feet of 100-year flood 

plains, wetlands, and perennial streams, or within 100 feet of the edge of the inner gorge of intermittent 

and large ephemeral drainages. This would reduce the area available for locatable minerals development. 

The impacts under this alternative would be the same as under Alternative 3 but more restrictive than 

under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Wildlife management would affect locatable minerals activity by having seasonal closures for various 

species and by establishing minimum distances from wildlife activity such as raptor and greater sagegrouse nesting, as well as from greater sage-grouse breeding grounds. This alternative would designate a 

larger area as crucial winter range than under Alternative 1. In general, the restrictions under this 

alternative would be greater than those under Alternatives 1 and 2 but less than those under Alternative 3. 

In the case of locatable minerals, the restrictions would minimize the area available for exploration and 

mining. The time available for locatable minerals activities in different areas would also be constrained. 

SD/MA management would create new ACECs at Trapper’s Point and New Fork Potholes. Those areas, 

as well as the CCC Ponds SRMA, the East Fork River WSR Unit, and several sensitive cultural sites, 

would be withdrawn from mining claim location, thus eliminating locatable minerals activity. The Rock 

Creek and Beaver Creek ACECs would be retained, and the Miller Mountain, Ross Butte, and Wind 

River Front MAs would be established. Four rivers would be managed as suitable for the WSR system. In 

areas that would not be withdrawn, management prescriptions would impact locatable minerals 

development as is seen, for example, in the Ross Butte’s prescription: “to protect fragile soils and 

watersheds, sensitive plant species, and visual values in the Ross Butte area.” Other SD/MAs have their 

own prescriptions that may be restrictive to locatable minerals activity. This would be more restrictive 

than under Alternative 1. 

4.7.3 Salable Minerals 

Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Development of salable minerals (primarily aggregate and decorative stone) will be primarily 

driven by the pace of oil and gas development and of vacation home and recreational 

development. 

• The early part of the planning period may have the greatest demand because of the initial 

construction of road infrastructure and the high rate of new housing construction. 

Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources within the 

planning area, reviews of existing literature, and information provided by other agencies. Spatial analysis 

was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 computer software. Effects are quantified where 

possible. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes 

described using ranges of potential impacts or are described in qualitative terms if appropriate. 

4-88 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Impacts on the salable minerals resources are not anticipated as a result of implementing management 

actions for wildland fire and livestock grazing. 

Air quality impacts on salable minerals development would consist of cooperation among BLM, WDEQ, 

and EPA to mitigate air quality impacts on a case-by-case basis. Examples of possible mitigation would 

be dust control on roads used in mining operations and WDEQ permitting of crushing/screening 

operations and asphalt plants. 

The presence of cultural resources eligible for listing on the NRHP, as well as sites considered sensitive 

by Native Americans, could restrict and possibly prohibit some salable minerals exploration or mining 

activities. In some cases, relocation of the proposed activity could be necessary. The same types of 

impacts could result from salable minerals activities occurring within the visual setting of cultural 

resources, in cases where the cultural resource’s visual setting contributes to its NRHP eligibility. 

The discovery of significant paleontological resources could impact the timing and/or location of salable 

minerals activities. Significant paleontological resources would include vertebrate fossils, as well as 

scientifically important invertebrate and plant fossils. In most cases, the main impact would be a delay in 

the salable minerals development while fossils are collected and recorded. 

There would be vegetation-related impacts on locatable minerals development from Special Status Plant 

Species protection, which could require relocation or prohibition of activities. 

Salable minerals mining activity within established VRM class areas would generally be required to 

conform to the objectives and characteristics of the VRM classification, especially in respect to the 

placement and design of facilities. For example, in VRM Class II areas, the level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be low. In VRM Class II areas, activity may be seen but should not attract 

the attention of the casual observer. In VRM Class III areas, the level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be moderate. The mining area and production facilities may attract attention but should 

not dominate the view of the casual observer. In VRM Class IV areas, the level of change to the 

characteristic landscape could be high, with activities dominating the view and being the major focus of 

viewer attention. 

Watershed impacts would involve the requirement that salable minerals activities comply with E.O. 

11988, Floodplain Management, and E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, as well as with the WDEQ’s 

water quality standards. Mining operations would be designed to avoid siltation and pollution of surface 

water and groundwater. Hazardous Spill Response Plans would be required. 

Wildlife and fish management impacts on salable minerals activities would involve mitigation for habitat 

or potential habitat containing listed, proposed, or candidate T&E species. Relocation and/or prohibition 

of certain development proposals could be required. 

SD/MA impacts would result from the management plans written for all ACECs. SD/MA management 

prescriptions could cause modification or relocation of salable minerals development proposals. 

The Lake Mountain (13,490 acres) and Scab Creek (7,710 acres) WSAs would be managed under the 

Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review (USDI 1987b), and 

salable minerals would be governed by the procedures in that policy, generally making the WSAs 

unavailable for salable minerals activities. Discretionary uses within or adjacent to WSAs will be 

reviewed to ensure that these do not create conflicts with management and preservation of wilderness 

Pinedale RMP 4-89 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

values. Salable minerals proposals near the WSAs could be prohibited or relocated because of this 

restriction. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 1. 

The cultural resources program would implement a no surface disturbance restriction within one-quarter 

mile or the visual horizon (whichever is closer) of contributing segments of historic trails. Three cultural 

sites would also be protected by an NSO requirement. Salable minerals exploration and mining activities 

may have to be modified or relocated to avoid impacting the trail and its setting as well as the three 

cultural sites. 

The impacts from the paleontology and natural history program would include possible designations to 

protect areas of unique natural history or particular natural interest, such as NNLs, RNAs, or ACECs. One 

possible NNL would be the Pinedale Boulder Glacial area, located on the east side of the planning area. 

Depending on the management prescriptions for these areas, they could impede development of salable 

mining activity, particularly the removal of decorative boulders. 

Recreation management would implement a no surface disturbance restriction within one-quarter mile of 

developed and semideveloped recreational sites, unless the uses are compatible with recreation. Salable 

minerals development could be restricted, depending on the type and magnitude of the activity. 

Soils management would require mitigating measures to reduce soil erosion, as well as siltation and 

salinity inflow to the Green River Basin. Those measures could restrict exploration and development of 

salable minerals. 

Access management could allow more access to salable areas by obtaining legal access to public land 

across private land. However, some roads could be closed, thus reducing access to some potential salable 

areas. 

Vegetation management (riparian) would restrict placement of facilities in 100-year flood plains and 

wetland/riparian areas, which could affect salable minerals development plans. 

VRM classification would have 21,290 acres in Class I; 73,430 acres in Class II; 187,070 acres in Class 

III; and 641,140 acres in Class IV. Salable minerals activities would be most restricted in VRM Class I 

and least restricted in VRM Class IV. Exploration, mining, and facilities would be subject to restrictions, 

redesign, or relocation, depending on the area involved and the VRM classification of that area. See 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives for more detail on allowable landscape changes. 

Watershed management could impose mitigating measures to reduce soil erosion, as well as siltation and 

salinity inflow to the Green River Basin. Those measures could restrict exploration and development of 

salable minerals. Development within 500 feet of riparian/wetlands and live water would not be allowed, 

which could affect proposed salable minerals activities. 

Wildlife and fish management would prohibit activity on and near elk feedgrounds, unless the activity is 

temporary or compatible with elk habitat management. Salable minerals activity could be restricted by 

this mitigation in certain areas. Seasonal wildlife restrictions and distance restrictions from various 

wildlife habitat areas would complicate and in some cases prohibit salable minerals activities. These 

restrictions could cause an operator to move to nearby state or private land having no such restrictions. 

4-90 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

There would be a no surface disturbance requirement in the Rock Creek drainage area of the Rock Creek 

ACEC. The Beaver Creek ACEC would contain restrictions on activity on steep slopes and near streams, 

which could also affect any potential salable minerals activity. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 2. 

The impacts from soils and watershed management would be the same as under Alternative 1. 

Cultural program management would impact salable minerals by prohibiting surface occupancy on certain 

cultural sites and by prohibiting activity within one-quarter mile of certain historic trails. This could cause 

salable minerals activities in some areas to be prohibited or relocated. This would be more restrictive than 

under Alternative 1, because more sites would be protected under this alternative. 

This alternative would place fewer restrictions on oil and gas development than Alternative 1, which 

would probably result in higher demand for mineral materials. 

The paleontology and natural history program would not process designations to protect areas of unique 

natural history or particular natural interest, such as NNLs. This would be less restrictive than under 

Alternative 1 and would have less of an impact on salable minerals development. 

Recreation impacts would include creating a one-quarter-mile zone of no surface disturbance around 

developed recreational sites and placing various restrictions on three SRMAs (Boulder Lake, Scab Creek, 

and Upper Green River). This would impact salable minerals by limiting development around sites and 

possibly by modifying development proposals in SRMAs. This would be less restrictive than under 

Alternative 1. 

Under this alternative, access management could allow more access to salable areas by obtaining legal 

access to public land across private land. This would be less restrictive than under Alternative 1, because 

no roads would be closed. 

Under this alternative, vegetation management would require weed control, which could add some costs 

to salable minerals operations and would be slightly more restrictive than under Alternative 1. However, 

this alternative would not restrict placement of facilities in 100-year flood plains and wetland/riparian 

areas, which would make it less restrictive overall than Alternative 1. 

Compared to Alternative 1, VRM management under this alternative would reduce acreage in Class I 

areas (from 21,290 acres to 0 acres) and in Class III areas (from 187,070 acres to 118,390 acres) and 

would increase acreage in Class II areas (from 73,430 acres to 87,150 acres) and in Class IV areas (from 

641,140 acres to 717,390 acres). The percentage increase for VRM Class II acreage (+16%) is offset by 

the decrease in VRM Class I acreage (-100%) and in VRM Class III acreage (-36%) and by the increase 

in VRM Class IV acreage (+11%). Overall, these changes in VRM classification would allow larger 

impacts on the landscape, which could allow more development of salable minerals. 

Under this alternative, wildlife and fish management would have temporal and areal restrictions on 

greater sage-grouse leks, nesting areas, and winter concentration areas, and elk feedgrounds would be 

closed. However, no seasonal restrictions would be applied for activities in big game parturition areas, 

crucial winter ranges, and migration routes and bottlenecks. This would allow more year-round salable 

minerals activity and would be less restrictive than under Alternative 1. 

Pinedale RMP 4-91 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

SD/MAs would impact salable minerals development by prohibiting certain activities in particular areas. 

Under this alternative, impacts would include a new ACEC (Trapper’s Point—550 acres) and an area of 

1,590 acres outside the ACEC where activity would be prohibited. However, the Beaver Creek ACEC 

(3,590 acres) and Rock Creek ACEC (5,270 acres) would be dropped, making this alternative less 

restrictive than Alternative 1. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 3. 

The impacts from the paleontology and natural history program, soils management, and wildlife 

management, would be the same as under Alternative 1. 

Cultural resources management would write activity plans, prevent surface disturbance at various sites, 

create a VRM Class II area within 3 miles of historic trails, and allow no surface disturbance within 1 

mile of trails. This could cause salable minerals activities in certain areas to be relocated or prohibited. 

This would be more restrictive than under Alternative 2. 

Minerals management for oil and gas would involve the maximum restrictions, which would lower the 

number of wells and reduce the demand for aggregate. 

Recreation management would implement a no surface disturbance restriction in a zone one-half mile 

around recreational sites and would also add an additional SRMA (Green and New Fork Rivers). This 

could cause salable minerals activities to be relocated or prohibited in some areas. This would be more 

restrictive than under Alternative 2. 

Access management, in addition to trying to obtain access across private land to public land, would also 

close some areas to motorized vehicles. This could hinder salable minerals development and would be 

more restrictive than Alternative 1. 

Vegetation management would prohibit surface-disturbing activities that could affect Special Status Plant 

Species (including future discoveries) or their habitats. This could restrict salable minerals mining 

projects and would be more restrictive than Alternative 1. 

Compared to Alternative 1, under this alternative VRM management would reduce acreage in Class IV 

areas by 56% (from 641,140 acres to 282,300 acres) and would increase acreage in Class II areas by 

436% (from 73,430 acres to 393,260 acres) and in Class III areas by 21% (from 187,070 acres to 225,830 

acres). VRM Class I acreage would remain the same under both alternatives (21,290 acres). This would 

result in more restrictions on salable minerals development under this alternative, and this would be much 

more restrictive than under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Under this alternative, watershed impacts would be more restrictive than under Alternatives 1 and 2, 

because this alternative would generally restrict surface disturbance activities on 100-year flood plains 

and within one-quarter mile of wetland/riparian areas and would specifically prohibit salable minerals 

exploration and mining within 500 feet of 100-year flood plains, wetlands, or perennial streams. This 

alternative would also prohibit mining activity within 100 feet of the edge of the inner gorge of 

intermittent and large ephemeral drainages. Many of the areas restricted from salable mineral 

development are likely to contain, to some extent, salable minerals. These restrictions would put many of 

these minerals out of reach. These restrictions could inhibit or cause relocation of salable minerals 

activities and would be more restrictive than under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

4-92 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Minerals 

Wildlife and fish management impacts on salable minerals would be highest under this alternative. The 

seasonal greater sage-grouse buffer would be extended to 3 miles, the acreage in winter range areas would 

increase, and parturition areas would cover deer and pronghorn as well as elk. Seasonal restrictions on big 

game migration areas would also be enforced. Exceptions would not be granted under any of the 

restrictions mentioned above. Larger buffer areas would be in effect around sage-grouse leks, elk 

feedgrounds, and raptor nests. The net effect of the wildlife restrictions would allow a smaller area and 

less time for any possible salable minerals development. This would be more restrictive than under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. 

SD/MAs would be most numerous under this alternative. 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, 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 MAs would be established (424,840 acres). Four river units would be managed as suitable for 

inclusion in the WSR system: East Fork River, Scab Creek, Silver Creek, and the Upper Green River 

(10,440 acres). Management prescriptions would impact salable minerals development; as an example, 

Ross Butte’s prescription is to “protect fragile soils and watersheds, sensitive plant species, and visual 

values in the Ross Butte area.” Other SD/MAs would have their own prescriptions that would be 

restrictive to salable minerals activity. This would be more restrictive than under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 4. 

The impacts from the paleontology and natural history program, recreation management, and soils 

management would be the same as under Alternative 1. 

In cultural resource management, impacts would result from buffer zones of no surface disturbance within 

one-quarter mile of the Lander Trail, which would be expanded in a certain area to a zone with 

restrictions on activity 1 mile from the trail. For contributing segments of the Lander Trail, a VRM Class 

II designation would be in place within 2 miles of the trail. Surface disturbance would be prohibited 

within 1 mile of the Sublette Cutoff. For some individual cultural sites, no surface disturbance would be 

allowed on or near the site. All of these restrictions would affect salable minerals development by either 

preventing it or causing it to be relocated. This would be more restrictive than under Alternative 1. 

Recreation management would prevent substantial surface disturbance from salable minerals within onequarter mile of developed recreational sites, which would cause any planned development to be relocated. 

This would be the same restriction as under Alternative 1. 

Access management would close some areas to motorized vehicles and restrict access to designated roads 

in other areas. Approximately 2,500 acres between Silver Creek and Cottonwood Creek would be closed 

from November 15 to January 31. Other seasonal road closures would be possible. These closures would 

restrict possible salable minerals activities in some areas and could result in relocation of those activities. 

This would be more restrictive than under Alternative 1. 

Vegetation management would protect or close known or discovered locations of Special Status Plant 

Species to mineral material sales. This would be more restrictive than under Alternative 1. 

Compared to Alternative 1, under this alternative, VRM management would increase the acreage 

managed as Class II by 226% (from 73,430 acres to 239,520 acres) and as Class III by 124% (from 

Pinedale RMP 4-93 
Chapter 4—Minerals Final EIS 

187,070 acres to 419,410 acres), and would reduce the acreage managed as Class IV by 62% (from 

641,140 acres to 242,660 acres). This alternative would be more restrictive to salable minerals activity 

than Alternative 1, because of the more stringent requirements under VRM Class II and VRM Class III to 

mitigate impacts on the visual setting. 

Watershed management would close 100-year flood plains and wetland/riparian areas to new permanent 

facilities. No salable minerals mining activity would be allowed within 500 feet of 100-year flood plains, 

wetlands, and perennial streams, and within 100 feet of the edge of the inner gorge of intermittent and 

large ephemeral drainages. Many of the areas restricted from salable mineral development are likely to 

contain some extent of salable minerals, especially sand and gravel. These restrictions would put many of 

these minerals out of reach. This would reduce the area available for salable minerals development, and 

the impact would be the same as under Alternative 3, which is more restrictive than under Alternatives 1 

and 2. 

Wildlife management would have seasonal closures for various species, as well as minimum distances 

from wildlife activity such as raptor and greater sage-grouse nesting, and also from sage-grouse breeding 

grounds. This alternative would designate a larger area as crucial winter range than under Alternative 1. 

In general, the restrictions under this alternative would be greater than those under Alternatives 1 and 2 

but less than those under Alternative 3. In the case of salable minerals, the restrictions would minimize 

the area available for exploration and mining, which would require relocation of the activity. The time 

available in different areas for salable minerals activities would be constrained as well. Seasonal 

restrictions on BLM lands could cause an operator to move to nearby state and private lands that do not 

have such seasonal restrictions and could result in greater overall surface disturbance and loss of federal 

revenues. 

SD/MA management would create new ACECs at Trapper’s Point and New Fork Potholes. Rock Creek 

and Beaver Creek ACECs would be retained, and Miller Mountain, Ross Butte, and Wind River Front 

MAs would be established. Four rivers would be managed as suitable for the WSR system. Management 

prescriptions would impact salable minerals development: an example is the Ross Butte prescription to 

“protect fragile soils and watersheds, sensitive plant species, and visual values in the Ross Butte area.” 

Other SD/MAs would have their own prescriptions that may be restrictive to salable minerals activity. 

Development could be prohibited or require relocation, which would be more restrictive than under 

Alternative 1. 

4-94 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Paleontology 

4.8 PALEONTOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY

This section presents potential impacts on paleontological resources from management actions of other 

resource programs. Chapter 3 (Section 3.8) describes the existing condition of paleontological resources. 

4.8.1 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Vertebrate fossils will continue to be found throughout the Tertiary units exposed in the planning 

area. The Green River and Wasatch Formations are the most important geologic formations for 

paleontological resources, but nearly all the sedimentary formations are known to contain fossils. 

• The number of paleontological resources that could be impacted by various actions is directly 

correlated with the degree, nature, and quantity of surface-disturbing activities within the 

planning area. 

• Paleontological resources are most typically associated with bedrock exposures. Areas of deep 

soils, alluvium, or colluvium only rarely contain significant fossils. Therefore, the main areas of 

concern for impacts on paleontological resources are where fossil-bearing bedrock is at or near 

the surface, such as badlands, hill slopes, or areas with thin soils over bedrock. 

• Surveys required prior to surface disturbance in areas known or suspected to contain significant 

paleontological resources would result in the identification and evaluation of previously 

undiscovered resources. In addition, continuing scientific research within the planning area will 

identify new paleontological resources. BLM would then manage these newly discovered 

resources accordingly. 

4.8.2 Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources within the 

planning area; reviews of existing literature; and information provided by other agencies, institutions, and 

individuals. Spatial analysis was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 computer software. Effects 

are quantified where possible. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. 

Impacts are sometimes described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate. 

4.8.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Paleontological resource management policy requires the assessment of paleontological resources prior to 

surface-disturbing activities. Any needed surveys or mitigation actions would be performed by a qualified 

paleontologist. This would serve to protect most paleontological resources from significant damage. A 

small benefit to paleontological resources would result from their identification, recordation, and 

collection, which would occur from applying mitigation measures to surface-disturbing activities that 

would be conducted under most of the resource programs. 

Unmitigated surface-disturbing activities could damage or destroy paleontological resources that were 

unknown before that activity. Surveys performed prior to surface disturbance will not always locate all 

fossil material; therefore, surface disturbances in surveyed areas may still damage undiscovered 

paleontological resources. Subsurface paleontological resources cannot be identified prior to their 

Pinedale RMP 4-95 
Chapter 4—Paleontology Final EIS 

disturbance, but some geological features can indicate a higher likelihood of subsurface paleontological 

resource occurrence. Surface disturbances could expose fossils to discovery that would otherwise have 

been buried until exposed by natural erosion, thereby enhancing scientific knowledge. 

Damage or destruction of unidentified paleontological resources is possible during any surface-disturbing 

activity. Impacts on unknown paleontological resources would often be greater than impacts on resources 

that had been previously identified (and thereby either avoided or subjected to mitigation measures), 

because recordation and evaluation of those unknown resources would not occur prior to any damage to 

them. These impacts would complicate mitigation procedures and result in a loss of scientific information. 

If paleontological resources that are discovered during disturbance activities should remain salvageable, 

further impacts could be mitigated through recovery of the fossil material and related data. Most surfacedisturbing activities, including those that have mitigation measures applied, would preclude any future 

research. 

Surface-disturbing activities are a component of several resource management and development actions. 

The aforementioned assessment and mitigation procedures would be applied in a similar manner to all 

surface-disturbing activities, but could vary in the level of mitigation on a case-by-case basis, depending 

primarily on the potential for impact on significant paleontological resources and the degree of planned 

disturbance. These procedures would not change under the various alternatives. Management of forest 

resources, minerals, recreation, OHVs, and fire and fuels, could all have a surface disturbance component. 

Lands and realty management actions could impact paleontological resources by transferring public lands 

from federal jurisdiction and thereby removing federal protection measures and land use stipulations. 

However, before transferring public lands from federal jurisdiction, a paleontological assessment would 

be required, providing for adequate data recovery and documentation of significant paleontological 

resources. In addition, if surveys and evaluations identified significant fossil resources, the realty action 

could be adjusted to retain the associated parcels containing the resources. Given these conditions, the 

potential for such impacts would be minimal. Administrative actions that restrict scientific research, 

through restriction of either surface disturbance or access, would limit recovery of paleontological 

resources. 

Physical damage or destruction to paleontological resources could result from trampling by grazing 

animals or from OHV activities if specific localities or fossils are impacted. Livestock tend to concentrate 

more than wildlife around water/mineral sources and also create wide, deep trails down hillsides to and 

from water sources, and therefore impacts from livestock would tend to be greater. This impact would be 

uncommon but would occur in some areas. Recreational OHVs tend to run straight upslope, sometimes 

repeatedly, leading to physical destruction and increased erosion. This could locally be a larger impact 

than trampling by grazing animals, but would still be localized in certain areas. 

Soils management activities that reduce soil loss and mitigate soil erosion would maintain the soil cover 

that reduces degradation of paleontological resources within the bedrock/soil matrix. Restrictions on 

development projects with a potential to disturb the surface and increase erosion would reduce the 

degradation or destruction of paleontological resources. Implementation of intensive management 

activities to reduce erosion, whether naturally occurring or related to development activity, would reduce 

the exposure and degradation of paleontological resources. 

The proliferation of unauthorized OHV trails would decrease vegetative cover and increase erosion, 

leading to potential exposure, damage, or destruction of paleontological resources. In addition, 

unauthorized OHV use off designated or existing roads and trails could directly damage paleontological 

resources at or near the surface. The significance of these impacts would depend on whether the surface 

4-96 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Paleontology 

disturbance took place within an area with a high probability for paleontological resources or otherwise 

impact significant paleontological resources. 

OHV use on designated or existing roads and trails would increase the potential for direct damage to or 

loss of significant paleontological resources where these routes pass through significant localities or areas 

with a high probability for paleontological resources. In addition, continued use in these areas would 

result in continued and additional erosion, increasing the potential for damaging paleontological 

resources. 

The majority of recreation in the planning area would not require paleontological clearances and would 

not result in significant impacts on paleontological resources. While the recreational collecting of 

common nonvertebrate fossils is permissible, the uninformed and/or willful collection of significant and 

therefore protected paleontological resources could result in the damage to or complete removal of 

significant fossil resources from the public lands. 

Increased access in areas known to contain a high probability for paleontological resources would 

improve the ability of authorized paleontologists to access the resources with the appropriate resources for 

research and recovery. Conversely, improved access would also increase the likelihood of unauthorized 

collection of paleontological resources. 

Disturbance of paleontological resources within SD/MAs would be minimal because of increased 

development and occupancy restrictions and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. Impacts from 

permitted surface-disturbing activities would not be anticipated because all activities would require 

inventories and appropriate mitigation. 

Management actions for SRMAs that encourage recreation and development of facilities would impact 

paleontological resources directly through ground disturbing activities. Indirect impacts would result from 

the larger presence of human activity, which would increase the potential for vandalism. Direct impacts 

from ground disturbing actions would be mitigated by resource inventories, evaluations, and avoidance 

and data recovery procedures. 

Damage to paleontological resources could occur as a direct result of surface disturbances caused by 

wildland fire suppression activities (e.g., construction of fire lines, bulldozing access roads, and general 

movement of heavy equipment) and indirect instances of increased erosion, although fire itself has nearly 

no effect. Because of the unplanned nature of wildland fires, the impacts on paleontological resources 

from wildland fire suppression activities would generally be unmitigated. Ground-disturbing activities 

during firefighting actions and postfire rehabilitation activities could damage or destroy known and 

unknown significant paleontological resources. 

Fire management actions that minimize the potential for unplanned wildland fires or that lessen 

suppression activities would indirectly protect paleontological resources. Increased erosion from loss of 

vegetation following wildland fires could accelerate exposure and deterioration of paleontological 

resources. Identification of known localities and sensitive areas during fire planning efforts would allow 

for possible avoidance or modification of fire suppression activities, such as reducing the use of heavy 

equipment in paleontologically sensitive areas. 

Disturbance of paleontological resources within SD/MAs would be minimal because of increased 

restrictions on development, surface occupancy, and surface-disturbing activities. Impacts from permitted 

surface-disturbing activities would not be anticipated because all activities would require assessment for 

paleontological resources and appropriate mitigation. Furthermore, most SD/MAs are not in areas of high 

paleontological resource potential. 

Pinedale RMP 4-97 
Chapter 4—Paleontology Final EIS 

4.8.4 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 1. 

No restrictions are presently identified for the protection of cultural resources that may co-occur with 

paleontological resources. Although the possibility of such a situation is extremely low, the existing 

regulations would probably influence recovery of any significant paleontological resources. 

Approximately 43,022 acres would be disturbed by oil, gas, and CBNG development throughout the 

planning area. Surface-disturbing activities associated with this development could damage or destroy 

paleontological resources that were not discovered and mitigated before surface disturbance occurred. 

These impacts could also occur as a result of locatable and salable minerals management activities. 

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in VRM Class I and Class II areas (94,720 acres) would result 

in indirect protection of paleontological resources. 

4.8.5 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 2. 

The impacts from recreation and SRMA management actions would be the same as under Alternative 1. 

Additional protections and restrictions for cultural resources would be implemented. There is a slight 

possibility that the sites or trails may correspond to paleontological localities, and this could have a slight 

impact on the retrieval of important fossils. 

The impacts from lands and realty management would be similar to those under Alternative 1, except that 

the increase in ROW avoidance (201,420 acres) and exclusion areas (28,420 acres) would limit ROW 

placement, thereby reducing the likelihood of potentially disturbing or damaging currently unknown 

paleontological resources in these areas. 

Impacts from minerals management would be greater than those under Alternative 1. Reduced restrictions 

on mineral development would result in increased foreseeable development. Nearly 46,739 acres of 

disturbance would occur throughout the planning area as a result of oil and gas and CBNG development. 

This would increase the potential for damage and destruction of previously unidentified paleontological 

resources. An increase in the number of roads related to mineral development would provide increased 

opportunities for access by OHVs, indirectly increasing the potential for disturbance of paleontological 

resources. Because only 11,256 acres of new roads would be required to accommodate increased mineral 

development, this impact would be minor. 

Allowing establishment of ROWs without regard to common routes could increase the potential for 

disturbance of or damage to currently unknown paleontological resources. 

Impacts from OHV use would be less than those under Alternative 1. A smaller area would be open to 

OHV use. OHV use in the 237,360-acre open area would be limited to existing roads and trails under this 

alternative, reducing the potential for damage, destruction, or looting of paleontological resources in this 

area. In addition, OHV use on approximately 18,970 acres would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

4-98 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Paleontology 

This would further limit the impacts associated with OHV use by prohibiting travel in areas with a high 

probability for paleontological resources. 

Impacts from VRM actions would be reduced compared to under Alternative 1. A larger area would be 

designated as VRM Class II (13,720 more acres than under Alternative 1). This would likely reduce 

surface-disturbing activities within these areas and subsequently increase the level of protection for 

paleontological resources. 

Increased wildland fire use compared to that under Alternative 1 would result in increased surface 

disturbances caused by wildland fire suppression activities (e.g., construction of fire lines, bulldozing 

access roads, and general movement of heavy equipment). Although the likelihood for damage or 

destruction of paleontological resources from ground-disturbing activities would increase, the impacts 

from postfire effects and rehabilitation activities would decrease because of increased use of emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation measures. 

4.8.6 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 3. 

The impacts resulting from access management would be the same as those under Alternative 1. 

The impacts resulting from fires and fuels management would be the same as those identified under 

Alternative 2. 

Additional protections and restrictions for cultural resources would be implemented, more than under 

Alternative 2. There is a slight possibility that the sites or trails may correspond to paleontological 

localities, and this may have a slight impact on the retrieval of important fossils. 

The impacts from lands and realty management would be less than under Alternative 1. An increase in 

areas of ROW avoidance (555,210 acres) and exclusion (166,980 acres) would restrict or preclude ROW 

placement, reducing the likelihood that currently unknown paleontological resources in these areas would 

be disturbed and potentially damaged. 

The impacts from minerals management would be less than those under Alternative 1. Increased land use 

restrictions would result in reduced foreseeable development. Approximately 31,139 acres of disturbance 

would occur throughout the planning area as a result of oil and gas and CBNG development. This would 

decrease the potential for damage and destruction of paleontological resources. 

The impacts from OHV use would be least extensive under Alternative 3. Similar to Alternative 2, the 

237,360-acre open area would be limited to existing roads and trails, thereby reducing the potential for 

exposure, damage, destruction, or looting of paleontological resources in this area. Areas limited to 

existing roads and trails would be increased to 751,920 acres, and areas limited to designated roads and 

trails would be increased to 140,610 acres. As compared to Alternative 1, these designations would 

decrease OHV-related impacts by limiting and prohibiting travel in areas with a high probability for 

paleontological resources. 

The areas protected as VRM Class I and Class II (414,550 acres) would decrease the potential for 

unknown paleontological resources to be disturbed or damaged through surface-disturbing activities. 

Pinedale RMP 4-99 
Chapter 4—Paleontology Final EIS 

The increased number of SD/MAs and associated land use restrictions would reduce the potential for 

disturbance or destruction of paleontological resources during surface-disturbing and other disruptive 

activities. 

4.8.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 4. 

The impacts resulting from recreation, SD/MAs, and access management actions would be the same as 

under Alternative 1. 

The impacts resulting from cultural resource and wildland fire management would be the same as under 

Alternative 2. 

The impacts from lands and realty management would be less than under Alternative 1. An increase in 

areas of ROW avoidance (550,210 acres) and exclusion (41,500 acres) would restrict or preclude ROW 

placement, reducing the potential for disturbing and potentially damaging currently unknown 

paleontological resources in these areas. 

The impacts from minerals management would be less than under Alternative 1. Increased land use 

restrictions would result in reduced foreseeable development. Approximately 42,180 acres of surface 

disturbance would occur throughout the planning area as a result of oil and gas and CBNG development. 

This would decrease the potential for damage and destruction of paleontological resources. 

The impacts from OHV use would be similar to those under Alternative 3. All OHV Open areas would be 

eliminated, thereby reducing the potential for exposure, damage, destruction, or looting of paleontological 

resources. In addition, OHV use on over 139,000 acres would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

This would further limit the impacts associated with OHV use by prohibiting travel in areas with a high 

probability for paleontological resources. 

The areas protected as VRM Class I and Class II (260,810 acres) would result in increased restrictions 

over a larger area, decreasing the potential for disturbing or damaging unknown paleontological resources 

through surface-disturbing activities. 

4-100 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Recreation 

4.9 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

This section describes potential impacts on recreational resources affected by other resource management 

activities and programs. Recreational resources available for public use are dependent largely on the 

physical setting and associated recreational opportunities. 

Traditional recreational activities within the planning area include hunting, fishing, boating and floating, 

camping, hiking, rock climbing, horseback riding, learning about cultural and natural history, OHV use, 

rock hounding, photography, wildlife viewing, shed antler gathering, and social gatherings. 

Chapter 3 (Section 3.9) describes existing conditions concerning recreational resources. 

Section 4.12.2 of this chapter discusses OHV management and specific impacts on OHV use; however, 

based on the level of recreational OHV use in the planning area, this section has some references to OHV 

use. 

4.9.1 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Traditional recreational uses of planning area lands will continue, despite new recreational 

activities based on new technologies occurring in the area. 

• The demand for fishing, floating, camping, OHV use, and new technology-based recreation is 

expected to increase. The number of hunters will fluctuate with the size of the herds and other 

indirect factors, but because of less interest by younger generations, the number of hunters will 

decrease. 

• The incidence of resource damage and conflicts between OHV users and nonmotorized 

recreationists will increase as OHV use increases. 

• Both new and traditional recreational uses will be accommodated where determined appropriate 

to support achievement of resource goals. 

• Visitation throughout the planning area will continue to increase as resource availability and 

conditions allow. As the population of both neighboring states and the local area continues to 

grow, the need or search for less crowded or more remote recreational opportunities will continue 

to bring more people to the public lands in Wyoming. 

4.9.2 Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources and the 

planning area, reviews of existing literature, and information from other agencies. Effects are quantified 

where possible. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are 

sometimes described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate. 

Impacts will be described in terms of the effect on the natural resource recreation settings and targeted 

outcomes as related to recreational activities, experiences, and benefits. Effects on recreation may also be 

expressed in terms of the quantity and quality of recreational opportunities, experiences, and benefits. 

Pinedale RMP 4-101 
Chapter 4—Recreation Final EIS 

Quantity is expressed in terms of the availability of recreational opportunities, and quality is expressed in 

terms of improved or degraded recreational experiences and benefits. 

4.9.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Impacts on recreational resources are not anticipated as a result of implementing management actions for 

the paleontology and leasable minerals (other than fluid minerals). 

Air quality affects user recreational benefits when the air visibility or quality appears diminished by 

human-caused or environmental factors. A perceived loss of air quality may prompt some users to be 

displaced to other areas, may cause user expectations about recreating in these areas to change, or may 

cause users to rationalize the importance of their pursuits with the causes of air quality issues. 

Cultural resource management actions generally enhance recreational experiences and provide benefits by 

protecting resources and educating the public about cultural resources. Management actions for cultural 

resources could preclude the development of recreational facilities and opportunities in extremely 

localized areas, but this is expected to be minimal. Management actions involving interpretive programs, 

signage, markers, and other elements for historic trails, other historic sites, and important prehistoric sites 

would enhance recreational experiences, increase public awareness and stewardship, and reduce impacts 

on natural resources. 

Forest management in the long term and short term would affect recreational activities, experiences, and 

benefits. Managing timber resources to favor the maintenance of forest health and to maintain cover for 

wildlife would maintain wildlife populations and the number of hunting days. The relative increase or 

decrease in the available forest cover, type, and condition would generate various effects on recreational 

resources. Forest management practices often create access where none existed or may change wildlife 

habitat to favor certain desired game species, thus increasing species population. Conversely, people may 

find modifications to the forest structure visually distracting and detrimental to their experience, and 

forest management would therefore be a detriment. Accomplishing landscape-level forest management 

objectives generally maintains and provides substantial recreational value. Timber harvest activities on a 

localized basis have a tendency to create a long-term shift in the recreational setting from Middle Country 

or Front Country settings to a Rural setting. Road closures implemented as part of timber harvest 

activities generally have not been effective because of closure violations. Ineffective road closures would 

most often result in increased hunting pressure and disruption of wildlife. People seeking a more 

primitive experience, one in which they encounter fewer roads, would be displaced to other areas. These 

changes would likely result in increases and changes in the types of recreational use occurring in the 

planning area. Prescribed forest management practices would likely contribute moderate to major 

recreational benefits. 

Livestock grazing in and around campgrounds would create impacts on vegetation and could cause 

physical damage to facilities. The use of livestock fences could serve as obstacles to certain recreational 

activities. Livestock rub on public and private property such as signs and vehicles, and defecate in and 

around campsites, boat ramps, and other facilities. Allowing grazing on lakeshore and riparian areas could 

cause soil compaction and have impacts on riparian vegetation; this would be especially apparent in 

riparian areas where livestock remain for extended periods of the grazing season or where livestock are 

concentrated while grazing and loafing. These conditions decrease the benefits associated with an 

aesthetically pleasing and healthy environment and increase the public’s disregard for public property. 

The benefits attributed to the public’s perception of BLM grazing and recreational management practices 

would be affected. In localized areas, the impacts would be moderate. Some people enjoy seeing 

4-102 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Recreation 

livestock; grazing may contribute to an understanding of commodity production and agricultural 

practices. 

Where existing and expanding fluid mineral development and associated ROWs, power lines, roads, and 

facilities change the recreational setting from a Front Country, Middle Country, or Rural setting to a 

predominately Urban setting, there would be long-term displacement of traditional recreation activities 

and a major loss of recreation benefits. Impacts on some recreation-based commercial business that 

requires a more primitive setting could be substantial. Diminished or relocated wildlife populations 

attributed to a loss of functional habitat or to other oil- and gas-related factors could impact wildlifedependent recreational activities. Where quality recreational opportunities are diminished or foregone, 

there would be a major loss of personal, social, and economic benefits. However, potential onsite and 

offsite mitigation for wildlife habitat, if implemented, could reduce these impacts or enhance recreational 

values and associated benefits. Areas of intense fluid mineral development pose public health and safety 

risks, especially when industrial traffic and hazardous materials are present. Likewise, some recreational 

activities such as big game hunting within close proximity of fluid mineral facilities and activities may 

create hazards to industry employees and property. This potential risk-related impact may currently be 

low, but as development expands in the presence of continued public access, this impact may become a 

moderate risk. In addition, continued fluid mineral development would reduce the satisfaction associated 

with the hunting experience, because areas of high development are generally not satisfactory places to 

hunt. 

The influx of fluid mineral development personnel and their families has increased the demand for the 

benefits derived from outdoor recreational activities. Increased use can impact BLM-managed facilities 

and natural resources when use exceeds capacity. In the long term, these impacts may be moderate to 

major. Conversely, additional intensive fluid mineral development would reduce the availability of open 

space and associated recreational resources. Indirect impacts would occur where fluid mineral activities 

create undesirable conditions. Displaced recreationists may move to adjacent undeveloped areas for their 

recreation. These new use areas could become more crowded, and social conditions may deteriorate. 

Opportunities to enjoy dispersed recreation would be diminished proportionately to the amount of area 

affected by fluid mineral development. Locatable and salable mineral development would create similar 

impacts, but for the planning area, the expected impacts from these kinds of development on recreational 

opportunities and the visitor experience should be minimal. 

The development, use, and extraction of other resources in the planning area could cause substantial 

short-term and long-term impacts on recreational use. Impacts on the recreational setting would occur 

from intense development associated with construction of facilities and ROWs for pipelines, transmission 

lines, communication lines and towers, and mineral development. Land clearing, grading, construction, 

and drilling activities in project areas would also impact recreational use in the short term. 

Recreational resource management actions would promote the public’s enjoyment of recreational 

activities in desired settings and would also produce major personal and economic benefits. Recreation 

management actions would reduce risks to public health and safety while decreasing impacts on soil, 

water, vegetation, wildlife, and cultural resources. Recreational activities would be impacted by both road 

closures and the development of roads associated with mineral development and other use activities. 

However, the development of roads and acquisition of legal access could enhance recreational activities 

by maintaining or increasing recreational access. 

Soil management actions targeting the protection of soils and the reduction of unacceptable erosion levels 

could require seasonal restrictions or closures of roads and trails, which would displace recreationists and 

restrict recreational activities. Soils and watershed protection measures could restrict the development of 

future recreational facilities. Management actions associated with watershed areas could also influence 

Pinedale RMP 4-103 
Chapter 4—Recreation Final EIS 

the design and use of recreational facilities and types of recreational activities. However, these impacts on 

recreation would be expected to be minimal. Management actions aimed at monitoring and protecting 

water quality would benefit recreational resources by maintaining the existing water quality in the 

planning area. The protection of riparian areas would also provide protection to recreational resources. 

Management of water quality in areas adjacent to the Green River and its tributaries, as well as in ponds 

located on BLM-administered lands, could restrict recreational activities. 

Vegetative treatments would result in short- and long-term impacts on recreational experiences. Over the 

short term, recreationists might be displaced from treated or denuded areas to other more desirable areas 

until revegetation occurs. Area closures resulting from prescribed burns would temporarily prohibit 

recreational use. However, over the long term, vegetative treatments would result in improved vegetation 

cover and aesthetic qualities. Revegetation efforts would improve the visual quality of these areas over 

the long term, which would enhance recreational experiences. 

Development activities, including the construction of recreational sites, would be prohibited in areas 

designated as VRM Class I, and would only be allowed in areas designated as VRM Class II where 

adequate mitigation was possible. Although these designations would reduce recreational opportunities 

related to developed sites, they would enhance recreational values related to solitude and natural 

environments. Substantial changes to the landscape would occur in areas designated as VRM Class III 

and Class IV. These changes would create short- and long-term visual impacts that would directly cause 

moderate to major impacts on the recreational setting. Outdoor recreationists generally avoid areas where 

the visual characteristics have been altered dramatically or appear unnatural. Typically, the area visually 

affected by surface-disturbing activities and associated features is considerably larger than the actual 

affected area. There could be major losses of recreational benefits as changes occur to existing and 

expected landscapes. 

Water quality, if degraded by human or natural factors, would alter the level of use and enjoyment of 

recreational resources. 

Fuels and fire management often creates temporary closures during wildland fire incidents, and prescribed 

burns may inhibit recreational uses of those areas involved. Management of vegetative resources through 

fire and prescribed burns could improve range conditions and wildlife habitat, which could benefit 

recreational activities, especially wildlife viewing and hunting. 

Improvement of wildlife habitat through vegetation manipulation could increase wildlife populations, 

which would result in enhanced wildlife viewing opportunities and an increase in the number of allowed 

annual hunting days. Specifically, vegetation treatments in livestock grazing areas could improve wildlife 

habitat and increase wildlife populations. 

Maintaining wilderness values like solitude, primitive and unconfined recreation, and naturalness would 

create recreational benefits for those seeking primitive or backcountry settings. 

Special protections and enhancements in SD/MAs could increase visitation, particularly if their attributes 

are publicized. WSAs could serve as attractive locations for recreational users seeking primitive 

recreational opportunities and associated benefits, as would certain wildlife-related SD/MAs that would 

enhance or preserve benefits derived from hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. SRMAs would be 

designated to protect unique recreational settings and experiences, which would provide substantial longterm personal, environmental, and economic recreational benefits. 

4-104 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Recreation 

4.9.4 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 1. 

BLM would pursue opportunities to acquire public access to certain areas to ensure continued availability 

of outdoor recreational opportunities and realized benefits. Consolidation of land ownership would be 

pursued in the applicable areas within the planning area to increase recreational opportunities for the 

public. Access acquisitions and land tenure adjustments would facilitate greater access to recreational 

areas and would reduce conflicts between recreationists and landowners within the planning area. These 

lands and realty actions, combined with the continued protection of existing recreational resources by the 

establishment of ROW avoidance areas and exclusion areas, could result in an increase in available 

recreational opportunities. 

Surface disturbance caused by the construction of well pads and roads for mineral exploration and by the 

development of 7,192 proposed new wells would degrade the recreational setting and resources. The 

application of NSO stipulations on mineral leases within one-quarter mile of developed recreational sites 

would reduce direct impacts from fluid mineral development. Implementation of these stipulations would 

be essential to ensure public safety and protect the recreational sites and river-related resources. The 

application of NSO stipulations on mineral leases within the Upper Green River SRMA would maintain 

the river corridor’s primary recreational values, but development on adjacent lands outside of the onequarter mile zone, which are not subject to the NSO restrictions, would create direct and substantial 

impacts on the SRMA’s setting and recreational values. A major loss of personal, environmental, and 

economic benefits could occur in the event fluid mineral developments were to occur in this SRMA. 

OHV use would enhance recreational opportunities by facilitating dispersed use of recreational resources 

and access to recreational areas inaccessible to ordinary street vehicles. However, OHV use and its effects 

on air quality, noise levels, soils, vegetation, wildlife, and general aesthetics would diminish the 

recreational quality for other recreationists seeking solitude and natural settings for camping, hiking, and 

nonmotorized recreational activities. The pioneering of unauthorized roads and trails could degrade some 

recreational experiences. The Big Piney and Mount Airy OHV Open areas could be established pending 

activity plan development. The establishment of these areas designed to accommodate intense 

recreational OHV use would provide for a variety of OHV experiences while reducing excessive 

disturbance and road and trail proliferation. The creation of these managed OHV areas would reduce user 

conflicts elsewhere in the extensive recreation management area (ERMA) where motorized users share 

the same areas with users seeking a more primitive recreational experience. The Desert General Use area 

(237,360 acres) would be designated as open to generalized OHV use. Impacts on sensitive resources 

resulting from unregulated motorized vehicle use may prompt the closure of some areas to motorized 

activities. This action could create moderate impacts on OHV recreational opportunities and experiences. 

The authorization of special recreation permits (SRP) and associated mitigation requirements for 

commercial, competitive, and group activities would create substantial economic and personal benefits. 

There could be moderate effects from conflicts such as crowding between private and commercial 

recreational service providers or others authorized by SRPs. 

Management of the Boulder Lake (5,790 acres), Scab Creek (18,460 acres), and Upper Green River 

(5,160 acres) SRMAs would create major personal, environmental, and economic benefits. Recreational 

planning for these areas would reduce user conflicts and provide for the long-term enhancement of 

recreational values and benefits. 

Pinedale RMP 4-105 
Chapter 4—Recreation Final EIS 

The protection and improvement of wildlife habitat and riparian areas would enhance recreational 

resources and could increase recreational visitations associated with fishing, hunting, and 

nonconsumptive wildlife uses. Wildlife, the most valuable recreational resource in the planning area, 

provides opportunities for hunting, fishing, and viewing. The protection of sensitive wildlife habitat and 

the application of leasing stipulations to protect wildlife would ensure the continued availability and 

production of wildlife-dependent recreational benefits. Although the protection of crucial big game winter 

ranges, elk feedground areas, and sage-grouse strutting grounds would enhance the recreational 

experience, recreational activities in these areas could be restricted. Restrictions on access to certain 

wildlife areas, such as crucial winter range, birthing areas, ACECs (Beaver Creek and Rock Creek), and 

SRMAs (Scab Creek), could inconvenience some users. In addition, some wildlife habitat protection 

measures may impact commercial wildlife watching, hunting, or tour service providers, by reducing 

opportunities to provide these services. 

Motorized vehicle use in the Lake Mountain WSA would be limited to existing roads and trails. The 

recreation-related wilderness value of primitive and unconfined recreation attributed to the Lake 

Mountain WSA would be impacted by the use of motorized vehicles. Disturbance to soils and vegetation 

occurs when roads or trails are pioneered by all-terrain vehicles (ATV) and other vehicles used during 

hunting and other recreational activities. As ATV use for recreational activities is expected to increase, 

impacts on the area’s naturalness and solitude as a primitive recreational setting would be diminished. 

4.9.5 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated under 

Alternative 2. 

NSO and CSU restrictions surrounding the Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails and other cultural sites 

protected by the NRHP would benefit recreational experiences by maintaining significant cultural 

landscapes. 

A greater emphasis on the production of commercial forest products would result in a moderate reduction 

in recreational benefits. The construction of new logging roads could increase access to new areas and 

recreational opportunities. Although additional access provides more opportunities for motorized and 

mechanized types of recreation, it also greatly reduces the opportunity for more primitive recreational 

uses and further fragments the security cover for big game. This could impact hunting by facilitating 

access to remote areas and increasing the visibility of big game, making hunting easier in the short term. 

Over the long term, increasing the number of hunters combined with a lack of cover could decrease 

population levels and diminish benefits derived from wildlife resources. 

The impacts from lands and realty management would be similar to those under Alternative 1, except that 

the priority to process energy-related ROWs in a timely manner may preclude the processing of land 

tenure adjustments selected to benefit public access or prime recreational resources. When compared to 

Alternative 1, the potential expansion of common ROW routes, including those issued for alternative 

energy development, could locally create slight to moderate impacts on dispersed recreational 

opportunities and experiences. Under this alternative, lands available for disposal by sale would be 

slightly less (5,000 acres versus 6,300 acres), thereby decreasing the potential to forfeit some lands with 

recreational values. Designation of ROW avoidance and exclusion areas would serve to limit surfacedisturbing activities in these areas and thereby reduce visual intrusions and provide long-term protection 

of recreational and scenic values. The Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails, SRMAs, ACECs, and VRM 

Class II areas would all be ROW avoidance areas. All cultural sites, WSAs, and VRM Class I and Class II 

areas would be ROW exclusion areas. 

4-106 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Recreation 

All developed recreational sites would be open to livestock grazing. This management action could 

increase long-term impacts on recreation, because grazing at recreational sites and campgrounds could 

cause physical damage to facilities and would be a nuisance to recreationists because of visual impacts 

and obstacles from denuded vegetation, defecation, and other related undesirable effects that result from 

grazing. The activation of suspended nonuse grazing AUMs (Table A20-1) and the allocation of 21,000 

acres of unallocated forage, could contribute additional impacts on natural-appearing recreational settings 

and a reduction of benefits where the aforementioned conditions exist. 

A greater amount of acreage would be available for oil and gas leasing and development. There would be 

increased surface disturbance from 7,804 proposed new wells. Wildlife habitat protection measures and 

restrictions for most wildlife game species would generally not apply within the Intensively Developed 

Fields. New leases would stipulate few wildlife habitat protection measures based on critical habitat 

timing limitations. In addition, in the advent of qualified fluid mineral discoveries within the Traditional 

Leasing Areas, these areas could become Intensively Developed Fields and would become subject to the 

same development scenario. This could likely cause alterations in wildlife habitat and a major reduction 

in public benefits derived from wildlife-dependent recreational activities. BMPs could reduce potential 

impacts on wildlife and the subsequent reduction in wildlife-dependent recreational benefits. Additional 

areas important to recreation would become available for fluid mineral leasing, and the potential for 

impacts on recreational settings and subsequent benefits could increase as these heretofore Unavailable 

Areas are leased and fully or partially developed. Stipulations prohibiting surface occupancy within onequarter mile of developed recreational facilities and the Oregon Trail would tend to protect recreational 

values. Impacts on dispersed recreational opportunities for the ERMA would be greater from increased 

fluid mineral leasing and subsequent development. 

Recreational settings and associated impacts for the Boulder Lake, Scab Creek (Front Country setting), 

and Green and New Fork River SRMAs would be different from those under Alternative 1. Management 

actions would promote expanded visitor amenities and advertise SRMA attractions to increase visitation 

to the area. These management actions could change the recreational setting from a Middle Country to a 

Rural setting, thereby impacting those benefits associated with the Middle Country setting while 

enhancing the public benefits typical of a Rural setting. Recreation management planning addressing the 

protection of desired recreational settings would not occur. The likelihood of impacts associated with user 

conflicts and resource damage could increase. Benefits could be diminished over the long term as user 

conflicts and resource damage increase. Issuing additional commercial SRPs to guided fishing service 

providers within the planning area could increase tourism and economic benefits. Likewise, certain 

segments of rivers may experience additional commercial use. Crowding at boat accesses and on popular 

river segments could increase. User conflicts could increase as the private and commercial river users 

compete for the same limited resources. The recreational benefits associated with a particular setting and 

associated experience could be impacted. In localized areas, this could mean a major reduction in 

recreational benefits. 

There would be fewer restrictions to mitigate soil erosion. Fewer limitations on the placement of 

recreational facilities and public access could be expected. 

The acquisition of legal access and the consolidation of public lands potentially beneficial for access and 

recreation would not be pursued. Recreational opportunities and experiences could be foregone. Seasonal 

OHV use closures designed to protect wildlife from harassment would not be implemented under this 

alternative, which could result in diminished wildlife and indirect impacts on recreational opportunities 

and benefits associated with hunting and wildlife observation. Under this alternative, the majority of the 

planning area would be managed to increase motorized recreational opportunities. This management 

action would increase resource damage and user conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized vehicle 

users, which would increase impacts and reduce recreational benefits for both user groups. 

Pinedale RMP 4-107 
Chapter 4—Recreation Final EIS 

A decrease in the area designated as VRM Class II under this alternative could result in substantial 

alterations to the landscape, which would degrade the visual quality and recreational setting. 

Recreationists could avoid such altered landscapes and seek more natural-appearing areas to recreate. As 

the acreage of attractive landscapes diminishes, a major loss of recreational benefits could occur. Visual 

resource mitigation measures implemented to reduce the affects of surface-disturbing activities would 

lessen these visual impacts and promote a return of natural-appearing landscapes. 

Discharge of produced water to streams or other nonisolated surface features could occur, if permitted by 

WDEQ. This action could degrade water quality and consequently the recreational setting and experience. 

Some minimal impacts could occur from closing areas to recreational activities during fire activity and 

revegetation periods to reduce hazardous fuels and meet desired future condition (DFC) objectives. In 

addition, if emergency stabilization and rehabilitation efforts were implemented or if fencing or 

revegetation actions were used, recreational activities could be restricted in these areas. However, these 

short-term impacts would be minor and could serve to improve wildlife habitat and visual resources. 

The protections afforded to wildlife and fisheries habitat would be reduced. This reduced protection could 

affect the population size and health of certain species, resulting in indirect, long-term impacts that would 

diminish hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation opportunities and benefits. In areas adjacent to elk 

feedgrounds, the elimination of elk feedgrounds would reduce hunting opportunities and user benefits. 

Impacts would occur in the Trapper’s Point ACEC (550 acres) because the area would be closed to oil 

and gas leasing and all surface-disturbing activities, except for those that enhance the wildlife-dependent 

recreational values associated with big game migration and habitat. Additional fences would not be 

constructed in the area except to enhance the viability of the big game migration. These actions would 

reduce user conflicts between mineral development and recreationists, and would improve and protect 

more primitive types of recreation. They would also improve hunting and wildlife observation activities, 

and would reduce obstructions caused by fencing. Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities would restrict 

the improvement of visitor services and roads at the Trapper’s Point interpretive facilities, which could 

impact the user experience and resource conditions in the area. The Lake Mountain WSA would be 

impacted from the placement of livestock-related improvements within the Rock Creek area, and this 

action may affect the primitive and natural recreational setting identified with the Lake Mountain WSA. 

4.9.6 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

This alternative would provide the greatest protection for cultural resources from surface-disturbing 

activities and other activities potentially affecting the cultural property viewshed. These protective 

measures would tend to protect open space and other natural settings of particular value to recreationists. 

Some protective measures such as NSO restrictions could reduce recreational opportunities. Closing 

approximately 4,080 acres to motorized OHV use to protect cultural resources could reduce recreational 

OHV opportunities. Based on the acreage that would likely be included in these areas, this impact is 

expected to be minor. Impacts on recreational developments could occur as a result of the 3-mile VRM 

Class II designation surrounding the Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails. These actions would limit or 

preclude development activities, but would help to maintain the cultural setting and characteristics. As 

priority cultural resources are inventoried, site-specific management actions could reduce some 

recreational opportunities by precluding use in these areas. Based on the acreage that would likely be 

included in these areas, this impact is expected to be minimal. Management actions involving public 

outreach and the development of cultural sites would be implemented, including public tours, education, 

and recreational opportunities. This would enhance recreational experiences, increase public awareness 

and stewardship, and reduce impacts on natural resources. 

4-108 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Recreation 

Impacts resulting from forest management would be similar to but less than those under Alternative 1 

because the management actions under this alternative would restore forest function and improve wildlife 

habitat. 

This alternative would provide the greatest long-term protection of recreational values primarily because 

of increased withdrawal areas. Proposed withdrawals under this alternative would total 65,750 acres, 

compared to 14,540 acres under Alternative 1, which would provide for the protection of recreational 

resources and other resources important to recreation, such as historic trails, SRMAs, cultural sites, open 

space, and wildlife habitat. In addition, fewer acres would be available for disposal consideration, and 

land exchanges and acquisition of nonfederal lands would be pursued for the enhancement of recreational 

opportunities. These management actions would provide for the consolidation of lands, which would 

facilitate recreational opportunities and related benefits over the long term. Land actions to acquire state 

and private lands in crucial wildlife habitats would be pursued, which would facilitate and enhance 

hunting and wildlife observation activities. 

Designation of ROW avoidance and exclusion areas would limit surface-disturbing activities and thereby 

reduce visual intrusions and provide long-term protection of recreational and scenic values. The Lander 

and Sublette Cutoff Trails, SRMAs, ACECs, the Green River WSR Unit, and VRM Class II areas would 

all be ROW avoidance areas. All cultural sites, WSAs, VRM Class I areas, and the East Fork River, Scab 

Creek, and Silver Creek WSR Units would be ROW exclusion areas. Restrictions placed on 

communication tower heights and the consolidation of new communication development within existing 

sites would improve the visual quality and consequently improve the recreational experience in affected 

areas. Precluding wind energy development in raptor concentration areas, in areas designated as VRM 

Class I and Class II, in SD/MAs, within 3 miles of greater sage-grouse leks and winter concentration 

areas, and along the Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails would maintain scenic values and therefore 

provide long-term benefits to recreationists. 

Grazing systems and range improvements would be implemented to enhance wildlife, watershed, and 

riparian values. These management actions would improve the condition of these natural resources and 

consequently would enhance recreational values through improved water quality for water-based 

recreational activities and improved wildlife habitat for hunting and wildlife observation. The allocation 

of approximately 21,000 acres of unallocated forage to other resources such as recreation and wildlife 

could provide improved habitat and reduced impacts on riparian areas by livestock. This action could 

increase benefits attributed to the public’s perception of BLM grazing and recreation management 

practices and contribute to protection of public property. 

Surface disturbance would occur from 5,209 potential new wells. However, this alternative, unlike 

Alternative 2, would provide the greatest protection to recreation from conflicting mineral development 

activities, because less area would be available for leasing and a greater amount of area would be 

unavailable for leasing or subject to NSO stipulations. These management actions would result in longterm beneficial impacts on recreation by reducing potential user conflicts, while protecting valuable open 

space and ensuring long-term production of major social, personal, environmental, and economic benefits. 

Impacts from mineral leases that have been issued would also include stipulations to protect visual 

resources, wildlife, historic trails, SRMAs, and other resources with important recreational values. These 

stipulations would affect recreation by protecting resources, especially wildlife habitat and areas heavily 

used for recreation. However, a number of provisions developed to maximize fluid mineral development 

in leased areas could exempt these development actions from standard resource protection measures. 

There would be a major reduction of recreational benefits in areas of intense fluid mineral development. 

Under this alternative, the benefits and opportunities associated with dispersed recreation within the 

ERMA would be subject to the greatest protection. Impacts on recreation within the ERMA from fluid 

mineral development could be substantially less over the long term compared to the other alternatives. 

Pinedale RMP 4-109 
Chapter 4—Recreation Final EIS 

Developed recreational sites would be managed with a one-half-mile NSO buffer. These management 

actions would help reduce user conflicts and maintain recreational opportunities. Management of the 

Boulder Lake, Scab Creek, and Green and New Fork Rivers SRMAs would serve to enhance recreational 

activities and values. Under this alternative, recreational settings and associated impacts for the Boulder 

Lake, Scab Creek (Front Country setting), and Green and New Fork River SRMAs would be different 

than those under Alternative 1. Management actions would result in reduced visitor amenities and 

reduced area visitation. These management actions could also change the recreational setting from Front 

Country to Middle Country, thereby impacting those benefits associated with a Front Country setting, 

while enhancing the recreational benefits typical of a Middle Country setting. Recreation management 

planning would occur; however, because visitor use under all alternatives is expected to increase, the 

benefits of such planning may be diminished over the long term as management actions are unable to 

adequately address user conflicts and resource damage. In addition, the Warren Bridge River accesses and 

the CCC Ponds recreation area would not be managed as part of an SRMA, and a recreation management 

plan would not be prepared. Management within these areas would be more directed at protecting wildlife 

as an ACEC and less as a unique recreational area. This action could diminish effective management of 

recreational resources. 

There would be greater restrictions to mitigate soil erosion, which could further restrict the placement of 

recreational facilities and other recreation management actions. 

Access to public lands would be actively pursued, which would impact recreation by maintaining existing 

access and providing additional access to recreational opportunities. Impacts resulting from OHV 

management would be similar to those under Alternative 1, except that fewer user conflicts would occur 

because areas most often used by recreationists for recreational activities would be limited to designated 

roads or trails or closed to OHV use. This management action would reduce user conflicts and provide 

protection to lands with important recreational resource values. Impacts would also occur from closing 

these areas to recreational OHV use, which is a popular recreational activity in the planning area; 

however, based on the small portion of the planning area that would be closed to OHV use, this would 

likely be a minor impact. 

This alternative would provide the most protection to vegetation resources, which would in turn affect 

recreation. Recreational values and activities requiring a natural setting would be enhanced as a result of 

achieving management objectives that improve or protect desired plant communities. Recreational 

resources dependent on the maintenance of wildlife habitat, watershed resources, and biodiversity would 

be enhanced. 

The designation of VRM Class II areas would increase in proportion to VRM Class IV compared to 

Alternative 1. Achieving the management objective to maintain or enhance an area’s scenic quality would 

result in long-term impacts on recreation by protecting the landscape’s visual values and recreational 

setting. 

More protections would be afforded to watershed resources, which would enhance the recreational 

experience and setting. 

Some minimal impacts could occur from closing areas to recreational activities during fire activity and 

revegetation periods to meet hazardous fuels reduction and DFC objectives. In addition, if the emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation efforts were implemented, or if fencing or revegetation actions were used, 

recreational activities could be restricted in these areas; however, the impacts would be short term and 

could serve to improve visual quality over the long term. 

4-110 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Recreation 

This alternative would provide the most protection to wildlife and fish resources and to wildlife-related 

recreation primarily because the restrictions on surface-disturbing activities would be increased. Wildlife 

management actions would enhance benefits derived from wildlife-dependent recreational activities such 

as hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. However, some wildlife habitat and protection restrictions 

could impact commercial guide and tour service providers by reducing opportunities for them to provide 

their services. 

This alternative would provide the most protection to recreational values from management of SD/MAs. 

The protections that would be afforded to SD/MAs would also affect recreation primarily because a larger 

area within the SD/MAs would be subject to surface-disturbing activity restrictions, increased 

withdrawals, closures to fluid mineral leasing, closures to OHV use or limiting it to designated roads, and 

active pursuance of land tenure adjustments. These management actions would reduce user conflicts and 

enhance the recreational experience for those seeking less regulated types of recreation. The following 

areas would be designated: the New Fork Potholes (1,820 acres), Ross Butte (35,670 acres), Trapper’s 

Point (9,540 acres), CCC Ponds (5,530 acres), Rock Creek (5,270 acres), Upper Green River (12,270 

acres), and White-tailed Prairie Dog ACECs; the Miller Mountain MA (66,440 acres); and the expansion 

of the Beaver Creek ACEC (10,160 acres). Additional impacts would occur as a result of establishing the 

Wind River Front MA (358,400 acres). This action would close the area to fluid mineral leasing and 

development, thereby enhancing the area’s unique recreational values. Further enhancement would also 

occur from closing the area to surface-disturbing activities, such as geophysical operations, commercial 

timber harvest, commercial mineral activities, and the application of vegetation treatments (except to 

enhance wildlife habitat or reduce fuels and fuel loading). The Lake Mountain WSA would be closed to 

motorized vehicles. The wilderness recreational value of primitive and unconfined recreation attributed to 

the Lake Mountain WSA would be enhanced. Maintaining the outstandingly remarkable values 

determined suitable for inclusion in the WSR system would enhance the recreational experience and 

benefits. The watercourses identified for management would be the East Fork River (1,130 acres), Scab 

Creek (1,350 acres), Silver Creek (860 acres), and Green River (7,100 acres) Units.

4.9.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

The impacts from cultural resources management would be similar to those under Alternative 3. 

However, under this alternative, a somewhat smaller area would be protected by surface occupancy 

restrictions and by closures to fluid mineral leasing and OHV use. 

The impacts from forest management actions would be the same as those under Alternative 3. 

Recreational lands acquisitions could be less because of no net loss in private land restrictions. In 

addition, fewer acres would be available for withdrawal. This could cause a moderate reduction in 

recreation protection afforded by this lands management action. 

Current grazing preferences would be maintained; therefore, the potential benefits to recreation would be 

slightly less where recreational use and grazing conflicts exist. Unallocated AUMs would not be allocated 

to recreation; therefore, the potential benefits associated with improvements to riparian areas would be 

somewhat less. 

Increased surface disturbance would occur from 7,136 potential new wells. In comparison to Alternative 

3, fewer acres would be administratively unavailable to fluid mineral leasing, and a larger proportion of 

Intensively Developed Fields could be exempted from TLSs. This may contribute to additional impacts 

on wildlife resources and a subsequent indirect loss of recreational benefits. However, recreational values, 

Pinedale RMP 4-111 
Chapter 4—Recreation Final EIS 

especially those attributed to dispersed recreation throughout the ERMA, would remain better protected 

than under Alternatives 1 or 2. 

Fewer acres would be administratively unavailable to fluid mineral leasing. However, some large portions 

of the planning area would be unavailable for leasing or leased with NSO stipulations, and this action 

would provide considerable protection from conflicting land use activities. In contrast to Alternative 3, 

this alternative would provide the greatest protection for the values and benefits afforded by the direct 

management of valuable recreational resources as SRMAs. Under this alternative, the impacts from 

recreation management for the SRMAs would be similar to those under Alternative 1, except that desired 

recreation settings would be managed to provide an array of public benefits for the Boulder, Green and 

New Fork Rivers, and CCC Pond SRMAs. The management actions would focus on maintaining the 

existing Front Country setting where visitor facilities are present. These provisions would provide 

adequate visitor amenities and services for existing and anticipated visitor use, thereby best preserving the 

area’s unique recreational setting and ensuring the long-term production of major social, personal, 

environmental, and economic benefits. 

The impacts from vegetation management would be the same as or minimally different from those under 

Alternative 3. 

The impacts from VRM would provide an overall optimum balance of landscape visual values and the 

greatest benefits to recreational settings compared to Alternative 1. Achieving the management objective 

to maintain or enhance an area’s scenic quality would result in long-term impacts on recreation by 

protecting the landscape’s visual values and recreational setting. 

The impacts resulting from the management of water quality and watersheds, wildland fire and fuels, 

wildlife and fish habitat, and SD/MAs would be the same as or minimally different from those under 

Alternative 3. 

The impacts resulting from wildland fire and fuels management would be the same as or minimally 

different from those under Alternative 3, 

The impacts resulting from wildlife and fish habitat management would be the same as or minimally 

different from those under Alternative 3. 

The impacts resulting from management of SD/MAs would be the same as or minimally different from 

those under Alternative 3. 

4-112 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

4.10 SOCIOECONOMICS

This section describes potential impacts of management actions on socioeconomics. Section 3.10 

describes existing conditions concerning socioeconomics. 

4.10.1 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Economic benefits, in terms of labor earnings and employment, to the socioeconomic region of 

influence (ROI) would accrue from BLM-influenced activities such as oil and gas development, 

livestock grazing, and recreation. 

• Employment and income would continue to be a driver of economic and population growth in the 

ROI. 

• Housing supply and costs and community infrastructure and services will likely serve as 

constraints on population growth in the planning area vicinity. 

• Tax revenues derived from activities on BLM lands would continue to have fiscal implications 

for communities within the ROI. 

• Activities and resources available in and around the planning area would continue to be important 

to the quality of life of current and future residents. 

The pace and timing of mineral development activities is dependent on a variety of factors outside the 

management decisions of BLM. These include national and international energy demand and prices, 

production factors within the planning area, and business strategies of operators. Because the pace of 

development in the planning area is unknown, a relatively constant rate of development is assumed for 

this analysis. Therefore, actual impacts could vary if the rate of development or production changes over 

the study period. Additional assumptions for the analysis are described in Appendix 26. 

4.10.2 Methods of Analysis 

The potential economic impacts of alternatives associated with the planning area were estimated using the 

IMPLAN (IMPLAN 1997) computer model. IMPLAN is a regional economic impact model that provides 

a mathematical accounting of the flow of dollars and commodities through a region’s economy. The 

IMPLAN model provides estimates of how a given amount of a particular economic activity translates 

into jobs and income in a region. 

All data used with the IMPLAN model were adjusted for inflation before calculations were performed. 

Once the calculations were complete, dollar values were converted to constant 2003 dollars for the 20-

year study period (2001–2020) and discounted using a 7% real discount rate as recommended by the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB 2003). OMB recommends using a real discount rate of 7% for 

constant-dollar benefit-cost analysis, which approximates the marginal pretax rate of return on an average 

investment in the private sector in recent years. 

The IMPLAN model requires a series of inputs and assumptions specific to the study area, including the 

value of production resulting from land uses within the planning area under each alternative. BLM staff 

furnished information on current uses and how these uses might change under each alternative, which 

Pinedale RMP 4-113 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

provided a physical, quantitative measure of the inputs necessary for the economic impact analysis (e.g., 

the number of gas wells, AUMs, recreational visitor days). Table 4-12 summarizes the primary data and 

sources used to estimate physical inputs for the IMPLAN model. 

Table 4-12. Primary Inputs for Socioeconomic Analysis 

Use Primary Data Inputs Data Source 

Oil and Gas Exploration 

and Development 

1) Historical Production 

2) Historical and Forecasted Prices 

3) Development Cost Estimates 

4) Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development Scenario 

1) Wyoming State Geological 

Survey 

2) U.S. Department of Energy 

3) Interviews with Local Oil and 

Gas Companies 

4) BLM 

Grazing 1) Historical AUMs for Cattle and 

Sheep Within the Planning Area 

2) Historical Cattle and Sheep 

Prices (1996–2001) 

1) BLM 

2) Wyoming Agriculture Statistics 

Recreation 1) Estimated Recreational Visitors’ 

Days per Recreational Activity 

2) Estimated Recreational 

Expenditures per Activity 

1) BLM Recreation Management 

Information System (RMIS) 

Database, Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD) 

2) WGFD, Wyoming Tourism 

Board, Colorado Off-Highway 

Vehicle Coalition 

The estimated inputs and prices were used to evaluate the potential sales from uses within the planning 

area under each alternative. These data are the direct sales estimate that serves as the input into the 

IMPLAN model to obtain an estimate of total economic impact under each alternative (changes in direct, 

indirect, and induced income and employment). 

Changes in employment and income cause other socioeconomic impacts such as changes in population, 

which can lead to other community impacts on housing, infrastructure, government services, and qualityof-life issues. The changes in employment and income have been used to qualitatively assess other 

impacts in the socioeconomic ROI. 

Mineral production in the study area is the largest source of tax revenue for government entities within 

the study area. The analysis addressed any changes in tax revenues as a result of changes in oil and gas 

development within the planning area. The assessment of mineral tax revenues relied on production and 

assessed value estimates and effective tax rates provided by the Wyoming Department of Revenue, 

Mineral Tax Division. 

In addition, an estimate of future oil and gas exploration and development was taken from the RFD 

scenario. Historic grazing use served as a basis for developing the grazing assumptions used under each 

alternative. Recreational use by alternative was estimated using data from the BLM Recreation 

Management Information System (RMIS) database and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(WGFD). Additional methods for the analysis are described in Appendix 26. 

4.10.3 Environmental Justice 

E.O. 12898, Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, requires identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health and 

environmental impacts of federal programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income 

4-114 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

populations. To evaluate potential environmental justice impacts, guidance obtained from other federal 

agencies was reviewed, including— 

• E.O. 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations,” February 11, 1994, Federal Register at 7630 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Interim Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental 

Justice Concerns in EPA’s Compliance Analysis, Office of Federal Activities,” September 30, 

1997 

• Council on Environmental Quality, “Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act,” Executive Office of the President, December 1997. 

The following five-step method was used to evaluate potential environmental justice impacts associated 

with land management actions proposed by BLM: 

• Step One: Identify potential minority or low-income populations within the ROI. 

• Step Two: Identify a broad range of potential environmental and human health effects that could 

affect minority or low-income populations, including safety, traffic, air quality, noise, cultural 

resources, hazardous waste sites and hazardous materials transport, natural resources, land use, 

and socioeconomics. 

• Step Three: Assess whether these potential impacts on minority and low-income populations 

would be high. 

• Step Four: Conduct extended outreach to minority and low-income populations that would 

experience potential high effects. 

• Step Five: Evaluate mitigation measures that would be used to minimize impacts on minority and 

low-income populations. 

Relevant Census data for counties within the ROI, including Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater counties, 

as well as for the State of Wyoming, were collected for this analysis. These data include— 

• Total population 

• Percentage of the population with minority status (e.g., Black or African American, Hispanic or 

Latino, Asian American, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific 

Islander) 

• Percentage of the population with low-income status, using annual statistical thresholds from the 

Bureau of the Census Current Population Reports 

• Percentage of the population with minority status in the entire State of Wyoming 

• Percentage of the population with low-income status in the entire State of Wyoming, using annual 

statistical thresholds from the Bureau of the Census Current Population Reports. 

These data were then used to determine whether the populations residing within the counties in the ROI 

constitute an “environmental justice population” that meets any of the following criteria: 

• At least one-half of the population is of minority status. 

Pinedale RMP 4-115 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

• At least one-half of the population is of low-income status. 

• The percentage of population with minority status is at least 10 percentage points higher than for 

the entire State of Wyoming. 

• The percentage of population with low-income status is at least 10 percentage points higher than 

for the entire State of Wyoming. 

4.10.4 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

All alternatives would continue management activities on BLM-administered lands that would perpetuate 

already occurring trends in the area. For instance, continued development and operation of oil and gas 

wells within the planning area would require the purchase of goods and services from a variety of local 

and regional contractors and vendors. Expenditures associated with these activities, in addition to 

employee and contractor spending, would generate positive economic benefits in terms of employment 

and income. Other socioeconomic impacts that are already occurring and are likely to continue to occur 

(at various scales) under all alternatives include changes in employment and labor earnings; changes in 

crime and substance abuse; and changes in demand for housing and government services, such as schools, 

medical facilities, law enforcement. In addition, management actions could alter attitudes and opinions on 

the use of public lands. 

Although current trends are expected to continue in the future for all alternatives, there will be some 

differences among alternatives regarding the relative rate of increase or decrease of those trends. Where 

possible, these differences among the alternatives are noted in Sections 4.10.6 through 4.10.9. Generally, 

these socioeconomic indicators are all expected to experience a similar direction or trend, and the 

increasing or decreasing trend is summarized in Table 4-13. 

Table 4-13. Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts for All Alternatives 

Socioeconomic Indicator Impact for All Alternatives 

Regional Employment 

Employment is expected to increase under all alternatives driven by 

growth in gas activities. Nonresidential employment would continue to be 

considerable for drilling and completion activities (approximately 60% of 

the development labor force does not reside in the study area). If 

housing shortages are addressed, this may allow some temporary 

workers to move to the area permanently. 

Personal Income Real personal income is likely to increase under all alternatives driven by 

increasing labor earnings. 

Labor Earnings Labor earnings are expected to increase as oil and gas development 

and production increase. 

Investment Income Investment income in constant dollars is expected to decrease across 

the study area under all alternatives. 

Median Household Income Real median household income is expected to increase in the study 

area, with higher rates experienced in Sublette County. 

Tax Revenues 

Tax revenues are expected to increase under all alternatives, providing 

vital revenues to town and county governments for services and 

infrastructure. 

Local Government Expenditures 

Local town and county government expenditures and budgets are 

expected to increase as these communities struggle to provide housing, 

public services, and infrastructure to meet the booming population driven 

by gas development and extraction. 

4-116 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Pinedale RMP 4-117 

Socioeconomic Indicator Impact for All Alternatives 

Social and Community Services 

These municipal and county services, including public service provisions 

such as education, road repair and construction, police and law 

enforcement, judicial facilities and services, medical services and 

facilities, emergency services, other social services, utility services 

(water, electricity, sewer, waste disposal), and often housing and land 

acquisition, are all expected to increase under all alternatives. 

Population Population is expected to increase under all alternatives. 

Recreation and Tourism Visitation 

Levels 

Recreation and tourism visitation are expected to decrease under all 

alternatives, most predominantly in Sublette County. 

Community Stability and 

Connectedness 

Community stability and connectiveness is expected to decrease, at 

least through the oil and gas development stage, as an increasing 

number of nonresidential temporary workers migrate to the area, 

bringing differing value systems and ways of life. 

Oil and Gas Industry Mortality Rates Oil and gas industry mortality rates are expected to increase along with 

development increases in the area. 

Housing 

Although there has been considerable building of housing in the area, 

there is still a housing shortage because of increasing population, which 

causes increases in the cost of housing in the area. These trends are 

expected to continue under all alternatives. These high housing costs 

and lack of availability make it difficult for both seasonal oil and gas and 

supporting sector workers (e.g., teachers, gas station attendants, 

waitresses) to move to the area. 

Crime 

The trend of increased incidences of crime would continue, especially in 

Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, with higher rates of increase in 

Sublette County. Crime impacts in Lincoln County are less certain. 

Substances Abuse Substance abuse is expected to increase, especially in Sublette County, 

where the bulk of gas development is occurring. 

School Enrollment 

School enrollment is expected to increase under all alternatives in 

Sweetwater and Sublette Counties, including seasonal demand for 

educational services as both the resident and transient population 

swells. Enrollment in Lincoln County is less certain. 

Air Quality Impacts on air quality and quality of life are expected to be exacerbated 

by increasing development and production in the area. 

Viewsheds Impacts on viewshed and natural scenery are expected to increase 

under all alternatives as development and production increases. 

Traffic 

With additional oil and gas development and production anticipated 

under all alternatives, it is likely that traffic, vehicle congestion, and road 

construction within Sublette and Sweetwater Counties would continue to 

increase, lowering the quality of life for those residents and groups who 

value remote and less congested lifestyles. 

Boom and Bust Impacts The boom cycle of the economy is currently occurring, and the bust 

cycle would eventually occur in the future. 

Along with fish, wildlife, vegetation, and the physical environment, people are an integral part of 

ecosystems. Lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs, values, social structure, culture, and population characteristics 

affect and are affected by management actions such as those made by BLM within the planning area. In 

addition, both the planning area lands and BLM management of these lands have emotional meanings for 

many people. Management actions are expected to cause controversy within local communities. Longterm residents within the planning area have long-held opinions regarding the need to balance 

conservation of natural resources with the economic viability of resource-based industries. Graduate 

students from Rice University recently surveyed residents of Sublette County and determined that the 

majority of residents favored a balanced approach to gas development featuring a high degree of wildlife 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

and environmental protection. The authors found similar attitudes at a national level (Gelman and 

Lacouture, 2005). 

The changing demographics of the west are consistent with the demographic information about the study 

area and indicate that retirees and perhaps amenity-focused, remote-working people have been moving to 

the study area—to Sublette County in particular (see Section 3.10.7). This area has also experienced 

increased tourism and recreation, at least during the summer months. These individuals and groups who 

value the area’s natural beauty and visual resources are being and would continue to be affected by any 

oil and gas development that continues in the planning area. Recently, second home sales have been 

decreasing in the area with very little to no sales activity currently occurring (personal communication 

with realtors in Pinedale, April 15, 2007). Investment income has recently been decreasing across the 

study area (see Section 3.10.7), indicating that retirees and relocating professionals may either be leaving 

the area or have more recently stopped moving to the area. Presumably, these demographic changes 

would continue to occur within the study area regardless of the alternative chosen. These changes can 

create conflicts among people and stakeholder groups with diverging belief systems and values. 

Wide-spread adverse impacts on tourism and recreational opportunities in the region could be possible as 

oil and gas development and production boom in the study area. Recreation and tourism employed 1,200 

people in Summit and Lincoln Counties in 2005. Visitors spent more than $25 million recreating in the 

region that year (Bryant, 2007). Tourists are drawn to the region for diverse reasons, including hunting, 

fishing, hiking, OHV use, and wildlife viewing. With the increased industrialization of the area, it is 

likely that fewer tourists would recreate there. Additionally, the tourism industry would suffer due to lack 

of available hotel rooms for visitors as gas workers fill local hotels. 

The Museum of the Mountain Man is a prominent tourist destination in Pinedale. The museum offers 

exhibits that illustrate early mountain man culture and the western fur trade. Attendance at the museum 

has declined from a high of 12,521 visitors in 1999 to 9,859 visitors in 2007, a 21% decrease over this 9-

year time period. On average, this represents approximately 2% decrease in visitation per year. Several 

factors, including high gas prices and low hotel availability, have contributed to this decline. The 

Rendezvous Rodeo is another prominent tourist destination in Pinedale. Although statistics regarding 

attendance were unavailable, attendance has been increasing for the past decade. However, many of those 

in attendance in recent years have been local people because of the scarcity of hotel rooms in the region. 

Air quality concerns (see Quality of Life description in Section 4.10.6) are also contributing to declines in 

visitation to the area (personal communication with Town of Pinedale, April 29, 2008). These decreases 

in recreational and tourism visitation are expected to continue under all alternatives, most predominantly 

in Sublette County. Visitor impacts on Sweetwater and Lincoln Counties are less certain. 

It is likely that under all alternatives, there would be increases in population and influxes of newcomers

(both seasonal and residents). Many of the newcomers may bring with them value systems and mores 

different than those endemic to the region; a minority of newcomers may exhibit a lack of respect for the 

community. Anecdotal evidence suggests these trends are underway. Steven Smith, mayor of Pinedale 

noted that “the amount of litter on the side of the road is remarkable. People that have lived here a long 

time, I doubt anybody in this room has ever thrown anything out their car window, because we appreciate 

the natural environment and that’s one of the reasons that we’re here...This is the difference between 

people who live here because we want to and those that come here for employment,” (personal 

communication, April 29, 2008). 

Often, such trends can lead to an erosion of social integration and community satisfaction, at least during 

boom periods. Although some residents might not like the changes taking place in their communities as a 

result of this boom growth, most residents would, according to social research (Brown et al. 2005), 

4-118 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

reconcile their feelings regarding the new and changing community context over time (see discussion 

below). 

It is likely that the influx of newcomers would continue to strain the regional K-12 educational 

infrastructure. Recent trends suggest increased population is already having a direct impact on schools in 

the area. For example, in the Sublette County school district serving Pinedale and Bondurant, enrollment 

increased 208% between 2000 and 2006. Instructional staff increased 26% in this interval. During 2005 

and 2006, 20% of students either entered or exited the school district, suggesting a sizable transient 

population. A growing percentage of students are non-native English speakers. Many of these impacts 

have been more muted in the school district serving Big Piney and Marbleton as historic decreases in 

enrollment have created a better ability to absorb increases in population (ERG, 2007). The SETG 

estimates that school enrollment will continue to increase at a considerable rate of 160% between 2005 

and 2016, even under the low impact scenario. This equates to an additional 180 school attendees each 

year over the 11-year time period. Pinedale has recently increased its 5th and 6th grade facilities, and the 

town is considering building a new elementary school. 

Sweetwater school enrollment has increased by 5% between 2003 and 2006. The elementary school has 

reached capacity and discussions are underway on building a new school. There are no clear enrollment 

trends in the districts serving Lincoln County (Wyoming Department of Education 2007) from the 

analysis undertaken in Section 3.10.7. 

Until November 2006, regional school districts were extremely well funded. The districts retained 25% of 

excess special school district property tax revenues; 75% were returned to the state. An amendment to the 

state constitution in late 2006 mandated that all excess funding be returned to the state for redistribution 

(ERG 2007), making local school funding less certain. Under all alternatives, increases in oil and gas 

development and production would make it more difficult for the region to cope with the increasing and 

somewhat seasonal demand for educational services as the population swells. 

Oil and gas industry mortality rates over the past few years have been rising and are currently 30.5 per 

100,000 people, seven times the mortality rate of all occupations in the United States. Wyoming had the 

fourth highest number of oil and gas industry occupational fatalities and the highest average annual 

fatality rate (58.5 per 100,000) between 2003 and 2006. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC) have found a significant correlation between the number of drill rigs and the 

number of fatalities (CDC 2008). The authors suggest that this could be a result of several factors, 

including an increase in the proportion of inexperienced workers, longer working hours, and the use of all 

available rigs (including older equipment with fewer safeguards). Current petroleum prices suggest that 

increased oil and gas extraction activity will continue. Unless changes are made to increase worker safety, 

the high fatality rates are likely to continue. Under all alternatives, oil and gas industry fatality rates are 

expected to rise with increased development over the planning horizon. 

Nonmarket Impacts 

The values associated with BLM lands comprise two types. The first are market values that are normally 

estimated using a regional economic analysis such as IMPLAN. For example, oil and gas resources 

extracted from BLM minerals and lands are traded in the marketplace and sold to downstream processors 

and eventually to local distributors or utilities and the American public. The associated level of economic 

activity measured in terms of earnings, employment, and population is commonly estimated and reported 

in the impact section of NEPA documents. The second are nonmarket values for local people and society 

at large; these are other values provided by BLM lands that are nonmarket in nature, because they are not 

traded in the marketplace. In many cases, these values are actually larger than the market values, but are 

often overlooked because they are not always quantified. Examples of these nonmarket values include air 

Pinedale RMP 4-119 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

and water quality, open space, preservation of wildlife habitat, preservation and protection of threatened 

or endangered species, protection of cultural resource values, protection and preservation of wilderness 

areas, recreational values, aesthetic values, protection of lifestyles and community well-being, and others. 

The argument against quantifying these nonmarket values is that they are more difficult to quantify, and 

the estimated value is more controversial than the market values produced by regional economic 

modeling. While this is true, many agencies, such as BLM, the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the 

National Park Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have estimated and used 

these values in the past. In fact, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration panel that included 

two Nobel Laureates recommended using the Contingent Valuation Methodology (CVM) for estimating 

passive use values. Moreover, there have been numerous published refereed journal articles written on the 

procedures used and the results derived in estimating these values. Even though they are more 

controversial than their market counterparts, these values have been estimated and reported in numerous 

studies in which nonmarket values were considered an important component to total value. 

As mentioned previously, nonmarket values can be monetized, but the approaches are often complex, 

have the potential to be controversial, and require considerable resources to implement; therefore, it was 

determined that quantifying these values was beyond the scope of this RMP/EIS effort. However, it is 

recognized that the decreases in these nonmarket values will be likely and long lasting, but it is expected 

that the loss in nonmarket values would decrease as oil and gas fields evolve out of the development and 

into the production phase. Historically, as the productivity of these fields declines, they are sold off to 

marginal operations. The fields reach a point where they are no longer profitable, and the final 

reclamation may be left to the government. 

With regard to the oil and gas boom on BLM lands in the Pinedale area, it is likely that under all 

alternatives many of the nonmarket values would decrease in value. For example, with the rapid pace of 

oil and gas development, there would be surface and subsurface disturbances that cause a loss of wildlife 

habitat, recreation opportunities, and open space. This level of development would degrade the air and 

water quality, increase substance abuse, increase crime, and reduce community cohesiveness among 

many other nonmarket impacts directly related to the boom. Because these nonmarket values will not be 

quantified, it is difficult to fully understand and report the tradeoffs inherent to the significant oil and gas 

development expected in this area. Nonetheless, from a subjective point of view, these nonmarket impacts 

are considerable and represent important impacts on the area. 

Recreational and amenity values provided by public lands are both market and nonmarket in nature. 

Decreased visitation can be captured in the marketplace, through hotel and food and beverage spending. 

With decreasing viewsheds and increasing industrialization, fewer people would visit the region, 

decreasing spending within the area. Land use restrictions associated with natural gas development and 

urbanization would limit opportunities for OHV use, hunting, and hiking. These are all market impacts as 

recreation and tourism visitation decreases in the area. However, those that continue to visit and recreate 

in these areas would likely have a less enjoyable and therefore, less valuable, experience; this type of 

impact is not captured in the market. Short- and long-term habitat fragmentation and animal displacement 

associated with development activities could drive down the regional game population and limit 

opportunities for hunting and wildlife viewing. Declining watershed health associated with changing 

vegetation cover, nutrient loading, and erosion may adversely impact fisheries, thereby affecting the 

fishing experience. Increasing industrialization of the area would impact viewsheds and mountain vistas, 

decreasing the quality of the recreational experience. 

In addition to recreational opportunities, the region’s water bodies offer hydrological services, including 

irrigation, waste transport, and municipal and industrial use. Surface water and regional aquifers provide 

drinking water to communities. Road construction and other development would increase runoff to 

4-120 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

regional watersheds. Changing patterns of vegetation would increase runoff, potentially increasing 

nutrient loading and impacting water quality. Under each alternative, there would be a large number of 

additional water wells added over the life of the plan, primarily concentrated in areas in and around gas 

fields. This would put additional pressure on aquifers and increase the likelihood of contamination. Each 

phenomenon could adversely impact the surface and subsurface water throughout the region, which in 

turn could impact the quality of life. 

Viewsheds would likely be adversely impacted by surface-disturbing activities that cause visual 

intrusions. Impacts would likely be greater in the southern portions of Sublette County where mineral 

development is more intense, and near state and private lands because of BLM’s lack of authority on 

these lands. Impacts are already being felt by residents. “The viewshed is gone,” stated one resident of 

Pinedale. “The rigs are right on top of the hill. I used to look out my back window across the mesa, I used 

to walk out my back door and hike down there, not anymore” (Brenner 2004). 

The Division of Tourism indicates that the top five reasons people visit Wyoming include 1) mountains; 

2) the opportunity to view wildlife not found at home; 3) wilderness; 4) lakes and rivers; and 5) the 

natural environment (Bryant 2007). Though the values are not monetized in this analysis, these attributes 

of Wyoming are valuable to visitors and residents. Other societal nonmarket values include bequest 

values (having the resources available for future generations), options for visitors to use the resource in 

the future, and existence values (i.e., knowing that the resources, amenities, or public land characteristics 

exist). It is possible that there would be considerable adverse impacts on these societal nonmarket values 

as gas development and production booms. 

Some schools of thought posit that extractive industries are not beneficial for western economies, and that 

sustaining nonmarket values provided by public lands results in diverse and healthy local economies. For 

example, Duffy-Deno (1998) provides evidence that federal wilderness can be viewed as an amenity 

attracting people to an area, which can create an increase in tourism and visitation. Thomas Power (1992) 

obverses that since most western states in the 1990s experienced a decrease in employment such as 

mining, timber, and agriculture, traditional theory would indicate that their regional economies should be 

in decline. However, employment and income is flourishing in Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and 

Washington over this time period. He believes that the economies are transitioning from the Old West to 

the New West, where the quality of natural resources in these amenity-filled areas is drawing 

entrepreneurs, business owners, skilled workers, remotely working professionals, and retirees. 

Ray Rasker offers additional insights into personal income and employment trends in western counties 

and states (Rasker et al. 2004). From 1970 to 2000 more than 80% of real growth in personal income has 

come from two sources: 1) personal income from employment in services and professional industries; and 

2) nonlabor income, such as investment income and transfer payments. For states, he finds an inverse 

relationship between the degree of resource dependence on extractive industries and real growth in 

personal income. He concludes that counties in the west that are the most dependent on the relatively 

high-wage portion of services, the producers services (includes finance, insurance, real estate, 

management services, engineering, architecture, design), have much faster real growth in personal income 

than counties dependent on the transformative industries, which includes manufacturing (lumber, wood 

products, paper), agriculture, mining, oil and gas, and construction. The authors also studied the rate of 

growth in western counties statistically with a number of factors from 1970 to 2000 and found the keys to 

success in term of positive economic growth over time are— 

• A high proportion of public lands 

• A high proportion of protected public lands 

• Amenities such as ski areas and food and beverage establishments 

• An educated workforce 

Pinedale RMP 4-121 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

• Newcomers to a community 

• Easy access to transportation infrastructure 

• A high proportion of population employed in producer services. 

According to the authors, counties that are far away from airports, transportation infrastructure, and 

metropolitan areas experienced negative growth or negative effects on growth. Other detrimental impacts 

on growth were low education rates and high dependence on transformative industries, such as mining 

and oil and gas. 

Impacts of Boom-Bust-Recovery Cycles in the Local Economy 

Evidence suggests that rapid, large-scale energy development can create a boom-bust-recovery cycle. 

Daniels (2006) indicated that a typical cycle consists of a rapid in-migration of skilled labor, which leads 

to population growth that quickly overwhelms a community’s adaptive capacity to provide housing, 

public services, and municipal infrastructure. Local and regional governments may experience fiscal 

distress as they struggle to cope with increased demand for services. Often, production ad valorem tax 

receipts lag behind the funding needs for these infrastructure projects, which are typically driven by the 

labor-intensive gas development phase. Pinedale Anticline operators have indicated that approximately 

60% of their drilling and completion labor force does not live within the study area (personal 

communication, June 16, 2006); these nonresidential, temporary workers would not contribute to other 

local tax revenues such as sales and use and property taxes needed to offset the government expenditures 

for infrastructure (e.g., roads), services (e.g., medical, schools, drug and counseling services), and utilities 

(e.g., water supply, sewer systems). 

Research regarding energy boomtowns in the American West has documented the diverse social and 

economic impacts associated with boom-bust-recovery cycles. The balance of the literature suggests that 

large-scale energy development will have adverse impacts on rural communities, at least until the pace of 

development slows and population declines or stabilizes. Factors influencing the magnitude of these 

impacts include baseline community dynamics and the scale of energy development (e.g., Freudenburg, 

1986; Brown et al., 2005; Gilmore, 1976). 

During the boom stage, certain sectors of the economy gain from gas development activities. Others find 

it difficult to compete with rising average earnings, decreased motel and hotel availability for visitors, and 

other issues. Some of the local businesses that benefit are the ones directly supporting the gas drilling, 

including field services and support industries, wholesale trade, and other sectors that include developers, 

construction, real estate, lodging, and so forth. But it should be noted that other service sectors such as 

retail, food and beverage, and tourism-based businesses are finding it difficult to compete in an 

atmosphere of rising wages and scarce employee housing. 

Pinedale is experiencing considerable boom growth characterized by housing subdivision proposals, 

planning meetings, and numerous socioeconomic and planning studies (ERG 2007). These types of 

activities can contribute to community anxiety and conflict over how to handle growth (Blevins et al. 

2005). These boom-related impacts are expected to increase in the short term as the development phase 

continues. Newcomers are expected to continue moving to the area until the development phase is 

complete. Interviews with operating companies indicated that more than 60% of the workforce does not 

reside in the study area (personal communication with Pinedale Anticline Operators, June 16, 2006), 

which can negatively impact community cohesion and connectiveness. Often, these transient workers 

come to the area with differing value systems and ways of life, creating tension with residents. However, 

the initial cultural and economic shock felt by residents of the area would likely lessen as development 

continues (ERG 2007). 

4-122 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Typically, the bust phase is characterized by decreased economic activity, out-migration of residential and 

nonresidential employees, unemployment, and decreased inflation. The reduction in capital investment 

from drilling activities would decrease the downstream economic activity of other local businesses in the 

study area, including the food and beverage, lodging, health care, and construction industries. This could 

lead to increased unemployment, decreased economic output, reduced labor earnings and average 

earnings, housing and rental vacancies, and falling property values within the study area. Community 

infrastructure, such as schools, utilities, social services, and others may no longer be needed or not require 

operation at full capacity. In this environment, capital renewable and improvement projects on outdated 

and irrelevant community facilities could be expensive and controversial. Although development and 

population are expected to decrease after 2015, there would still be production and gas field activities 

occurring in the area (and production taxes accruing to the local area), which would partially mitigate this 

economic downturn as the region moves into the recovery phase. However, as production tapers off, 

government revenues from ad valorem taxes would decrease, likely causing budgetary shortfalls as 

investment project loans become due. 

In addition, after the development phase, transient workers would return to their hometown communities 

unemployed. Unless there is demand for their services in other locations, it is likely that the loss of these 

relatively higher-paying jobs would also cause economic downturn conditions in the hometown 

communities of the transient workers. 

Brown et al. (2005) explored the extent to which “time heals all wounds” in western energy boom towns. 

They studied the full spectrum of boom, bust, and recovery over 24 years in Delta, Utah, a rural 

community in which a 1.5 gigawatt power plant was constructed in 1979. The authors found that 

measures of community satisfaction were low as the date of construction approached and then declined 

sharply during the boom years. A recently conducted survey in Sublette County suggests this trend has 

already begun. When asked how an increased regional population would impact their quality of life, 57% 

of Pinedale residents indicated that it would decrease, while 28% said it would improve (McLeod et al. 

1998). Popular press accounts suggest that residents of Pinedale are acutely aware that their city has 

achieved boomtown status in the national media and in the public imagination (Clarren 2007). 

The largest increase in community satisfaction over Brown et al.’s 24-year study period occurred in the 9-

year interval ending 1995, in which the community’s population was stable. Measures of community 

integration like friendship ties followed the same trend. The author proposed that community satisfaction 

recovered as population declined and the community reconciled itself to the new development and related 

activities. However, there are key differences between Brown’s exploration of Delta, Utah, and natural 

gas development in Sublette County and the study area. For example, due to the nature of natural gas 

development and production, a higher population would be sustained for a longer term in Sublette County 

than it was in Delta. Nonetheless, it is expected that the study area would follow the general boom-bustrecovery oscillation explored by Brown and experienced in energy towns across the west. As a sidelight, 

it should be noted that recent and historical boom-bust experiences may have created more resilient 

communities and counties. For example, a state law requires that 40% of tax revenue from natural gas 

extraction flows into a trust fund, and it is expected that this fund would contribute to the resilience of 

communities and counties in the recovery phase (Clarren 2007). 

Both Sweetwater County and southern Sublette County have experienced energy booms and busts as 

early as the 1860s and as recently as the 1980s. Some residents welcome the boom times and the related 

level of general economic activity they generate, while others do not like the changes in their rural 

lifestyle. Because many of these communities have already experienced resource extraction boom-bust 

cycles, a Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) was established to serve as a local cross-sectional 

entity that would be involved in the planning process. In conjunction with the formation of PAWG, the 

community requested that a socioeconomic group be established along with the other resource groups to 

Pinedale RMP 4-123 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

report back to PAWG. A Socioeconomic Task Group (SETG) was formed to analyze the anticipated 

impacts of the oil and gas boom and develop suggestions and actions for monitoring and mitigating the 

affects. However, the expectation of some PAWG members was that they would be fully engaged in 

making recommendations affecting both the mitigation and monitoring plans associated with the oil and 

gas boom in the Pinedale area. It turned out their involvement was more limited than originally 

envisioned, and some members resigned. The PAWG has since been less involved in the process, and the 

SETG has for all practical purposes been disbanded. 

Pinedale and the surrounding rural area may be more socially and culturally impacted than other 

communities in the southern portion of the study area from the in-migration of newcomers, This is 

because the area has lacked prior experience with the influx of activity associated with current nearby 

energy production, while Piney, Mableton, Rocks Springs, and other communities have been accustomed 

to the changes in population and culture associated with energy extraction from prior development (ERG 

2007; Blevins et al. 2005; Wilkinson 2005). 

Environmental Justice 

Based on the results of the socioeconomic and environmental impact analysis conducted for this project, it 

can be concluded that those persons who reside in and around the planning area would endure some 

effects as a result of the continued management of the planning area. However, any identified 

socioeconomic or environmental impacts from continued BLM management of the planning area would 

be neither localized nor placed primarily on the identified minority and/or low-income populations. The 

identified minority and/or low-income populations in the study area, as described in Chapter 3, would not 

be disproportionately affected compared to the general population under any of the alternatives 

considered in the EIS. In addition, persons of all races and income levels were invited to contribute to the 

public participation process for the EIS, and comments or input into the process from minority or lowincome persons were considered on an equal basis with those from all other persons. Therefore, 

implementation of any of the alternatives would be in compliance with E.O. 12898. 

4.10.5 Summary of Oil and Gas IMPLAN Assumptions and Results of 

All Alternatives 

Many of the economic impacts of the alternatives were estimated through the IMPLAN model based on 

assumptions made for the number of wells drilled and completed and the volume of production over the 

20- year time frame, information which was provided by the BLM Reservoir Management Group as part 

of the RFD. Additional model assumptions and details are provided in Appendix 26. Table 4-14 and 

Table 4-15 summarize the well development and production volumes assumed under all alternatives. 

Table 4-14. Well Development Projections by Alternative 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Year Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1 

Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1 Completed Wells 

P&A 

Wells1 

Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1

2001–2005 1,714 153 1714 153 1,714 153 1,714 153 

2006 399 55 428 67 332 7 402 51 

2007 407 56 436 68 340 7 410 52 

2008 407 56 437 68 340 7 411 52 

2009 444 61 472 74 356 7 445 56 

2010 467 64 501 78 363 7 470 59 

4-124 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Pinedale RMP 4-125 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Year Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1 

Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1 Completed Wells 

P&A 

Wells1 

Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1

2011 467 64 500 78 383 8 469 59 

2012 467 64 500 78 388 8 469 59 

2013 392 54 425 67 313 6 395 50 

2014 261 36 295 46 203 4 264 33 

2015 262 36 297 46 206 4 269 34 

2016 292 40 327 51 219 4 288 36 

2017 342 47 378 59 225 5 347 44 

2018 327 45 343 54 172 3 315 40 

2019 430 59 430 67 430 9 430 54 

2020 345 47 345 54 345 7 345 44 

Total 7,421 936 7,826 1,110 6,328 246 7,443 876 

Total Well 

Projections 8,439 9,051 6,456 8,383 

Federal 

Wells 7,192 7,804 5,209 7,136 

1

Wells that were drilled, plugged, and abandoned. Additional description regarding the variations in P&A wells under the 

alternatives is provided in Appendix 26. 

Source: BLM Reservoir Management Group 

Table 4-15. Estimated Production Volume by Alternative1

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Year Oil 

(Billions 

Barrels) 

Gas 

(Billions 

Cubic 

Feet) 

Oil 

(Billions 

Barrels) 

Gas 

(Billions 

Cubic 

Feet) 

Oil 

(Billions 

Barrels) 

Gas 

(Billions 

Cubic 

Feet) 

Oil 

(Billions 

Barrels) 

Gas 

(Billions 

Cubic 

Feet) 

2001 3.945 496 3.945 496 3.945 496 3.945 496 

2002 4.468 573 4.468 573 4.468 573 4.468 573 

2003 4.632 659 4.632 659 4.632 659 4.632 659 

2004 4.737 734 4.737 734 4.737 734 4.737 734 

2005 5.166 818 5.166 818 5.166 818 5.166 818 

2006 6.741 844 6.901 863 6.325 794 6.723 842 

2007 7.508 934 7.758 964 6.853 856 7.480 932 

2008 8.085 1,005 8.422 1,046 7.238 903 8.079 1,005 

2009 8.454 1,050 8.852 1,098 7.465 931 8.461 1,052 

2010 8.722 1,082 9.169 1,137 7.617 950 8.737 1,086 

2011 9.100 1,127 9.587 1,186 7.743 965 9.119 1,131 

2012 9.409 1,163 9.937 1,228 7.864 980 9.432 1,169 

2013 9.520 1,177 10.071 1,244 7.978 993 9.543 1,182 

2014 9.774 1,207 10.361 1,279 8.196 1,019 9.798 1,213 

2015 9.515 1,180 10.135 1,256 7.880 985 9.547 1,187 

2016 8.603 1,080 9.252 1,160 7.044 893 8.634 1,087 

2017 8.116 1,028 8.798 1,112 6.589 843 8.176 1,038 

2018 7.833 998 8.540 1,085 6.302 813 7.902 1,009 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

4-126 Pinedale RMP 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Year Oil 

(Billions 

Barrels) 

Gas 

(Billions 

Cubic 

Feet) 

Oil 

(Billions 

Barrels) 

Gas 

(Billions 

Cubic 

Feet) 

Oil 

(Billions 

Barrels) 

Gas 

(Billions 

Cubic 

Feet) 

Oil 

(Billions 

Barrels) 

Gas 

(Billions 

Cubic 

Feet) 

2019 7.822 999 8.551 1,089 6.123 794 7.889 1,010 

2020 7.435 950 8.044 1,024 5.606 729 7.384 946 

Total 149.585 19,104 157.326 20,051 129.771 16,728 149.852 19,169 

1 This is total production from federal, state, and other minerals. 

Source: BLM Reservoir Management Group 

The IMPLAN model generates results based on capital investments for drilling and completing wells and 

production revenues. The drilling and completion or development employment includes both resident and 

nonresident workers. According to operators, approximately 40% of drilling and completion workers 

reside in the study area, while the remaining 60% commute from outside the area (personal 

communication, Pinedale Anticline Operators, June 16, 2006). The employment figures summarized in 

Table 4-16 include both local and nonlocal employment. However, induced employment was reduced by 

60% to account for the employment spending occurring outside of the study area. Tables 4-16 and 4-17 

summarize the economic impact results for jobs and labor income under each alternative as a result of 

development (includes plugged and abandoned wells) and production from both federal and state and 

private wells, representing direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.1 IMPLAN estimates 

employment though annual figures; therefore, for the investments and activities within the planning area, 

there are a certain number of jobs supported by these activities each year. On average, the annual number 

of jobs that BLM oil and gas activities generate is provided in the last row of Table 4-16. 

Table 4-16. Estimated Total Employment by Alternative1

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Year Dev’t/ 

Production Total Dev’t/ Production Total Dev’t/ Production Total Dev’t/ Production Total 

2001– 

2005 

42,868 

7,979 50,847 43,271 7,979 51,250 39,716 7,979 47,695 42,426 7,979 50,405 

2006 9,979 

2,066 12,045 10,805 

2,113 12,918 7,693 

1,943 9,636 9,951 

2,061 12,012 

2007 10,169 

2,287 12,045 10,997 2,361 12,918 7,869 2,096 9,636 10,149 2,282 12,012 

2008 10,169 

2,261 12,430 11,022 2,562 13,584 7,869 2,211 10,080 10,173 2,461 12,634 

2009 11,095 

2,571 12,456 11,906 

2,689 13,358 8,249 

2,280 9,965 11,005 

2,576 12,431 

 

1 Each industry that produces goods and services generates demands for other goods and services. When the oil and gas industries purchase 

services, such as construction, drilling contract, and stimulating, additional economic activity is generated. Multipliers describe these iterations 

(IMPLAN Manual, 2003). Multipliers can be described through the following definitions. 

Direct effects are the changes in the industries to which a final demand change is made. In this case, there are direct impacts from extraction, 

support activities for oil and gas activities, and drilling activities. 

Indirect effects are the changes in inter-industry purchases as they respond to the new demands of the directly affected industries. The direct 

change creates increases in economic activity for additional businesses that support these direct industries (e.g., construction, wholesale trade, 

geological services, trucking, power generation). 

Induced effects are the increases in household income expenditures generated by labor earnings associated with the direct and indirect effects 

(e.g., food and beverage stores, motor vehicle dealers). 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Pinedale RMP 4-127 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Year Dev’t/ 

Production Total Dev’t/ Production Total Dev’t/ Production Total Dev’t/ Production Total 

2010 11,680 

2,650 14,330 12,648 

2,785 15,433 8,411 

2,326 10,737 11,634 

2,660 14,294 

2011 11,680 

2,760 12,430 12,623 2,905 13,584 8,875 2,363 10,080 11,609 2,770 12,634 

2012 11,680 

2,849 14,529 12,623 3,008 15,631 8,991 2,400 11,391 11,609 2,863 14,472 

2013 9,804 

2,883 13,666 10,729 

3,047 14,595 7,253 

2,432 10,529 9,777 

2,895 13,581 

2014 6,528 

2,957 9,485 7,447 3,133 10,580 4,704 2,495 7,199 6,535 2,971 9,506 

2015 6,545 

2,890 14,330 7,490 

3,076 15,433 4,773 

2,412 10,737 6,659 

2,907 14,294 

2016 7,296 

2,644 9,940 8,248 

2,840 11,088 5,075 

2,185 7,260 7,129 

2,660 9,789 

2017 8,546 

2,515 14,440 9,535 2,721 15,528 5,207 2,061 11,238 8,582 2,539 14,379 

2018 8,186 

2,411 10,597 8,667 

2,654 11,321 3,992 

1,987 5,979 7,805 

2,468 10,273 

2019 10,755 

2,443 14,529 10,856 

2,664 15,631 9,964 

1,940 11,391 10,644 

2,470 14,472 

2020 8,629 

2,323 10,952 8,710 2,505 11,215 7,994 1,781 9,775 8,540 2,313 10,853 

Average 

Jobs/ 

Year 

9,280 

2,336 11,605 9,879 2,452 12,330 7,332 2,045 9,376 9,211 2,344 11,555 

1

 These employment estimates are based on total production from federal, state, and other minerals. 

Table 4-17 summarizes the labor earnings IMPLAN results. These labor earnings represent both local and 

nonresidential earnings. It is assumed that 40% of the induced impact is incurred within the study area. 

Table 4-17. Estimated Total Labor Earnings by Alternative (2005$, Thousands) 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Year Dev’t/ 

Production Total Dev’t/ Production Total Dev’t/ Production Total Dev’t/ Production Total 

2001-

2005 

$2,287,997 

$445,702 $2,733,699 $2,309,495 $445,702 $2,755,197 $2,119,756$445,702 $2,565,458 $2,264,410 $445,702 $2,710,112 

2006 $532,620 

$115,410 $648,030 $576,700 $118,016 $694,716 $410,595 $108,559 $519,154 $531,093 $115,135 $646,228 

2007 $542,765 

$127,759 $670,524 $586,940 $131,870 $718,810 $419,994 $117,065 $537,059 $541,662 $127,475 $669,137 

2008 $542,765 

$137,476 $680,241 $588,288 

$143,091 $731,379 $419,994 

$123,500 $543,494 $542,983 

$137,471 $680,454 

2009 $592,156 

$143,638 $735,794 $635,448 $150,214 $785,662 $440,276 $127,332 $567,608 $587,373 $143,904 $731,277 

2010 $623,392 

$148,024 $771,416 $675,062 $155,552 $830,614 $448,933 $129,930 $578,863 $620,929 $148,557 $769,486 

2011 $623,392 

$154,194 $777,586 $673,715 

$162,275 $835,990 $473,668 

$131,987 $605,655 $619,608 

$154,730 $774,338 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

4-128 Pinedale RMP 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Year Dev’t/ 

Production Total Dev’t/ Production Total Dev’t/ Production Total Dev’t/ Production Total 

2012 $623,392 

$159,135 $782,527 $673,715 $168,031 $841,746 $479,851 $134,039 $613,890 $619,608 $159,934 $779,542 

2013 $523,276 

$161,049 $684,325 $572,658 

$170,224 $742,882 $387,097 

$135,826 $522,923 $521,845 

$161,718 $683,563 

2014 $348,406 

$165,164 $513,570 $397,492 $175,019 $572,511 $251,056 $139,390 $390,446 $348,777 $165,963 $514,740 

2015 $349,340 

$161,434 $510,774 $399,782 $171,838 $571,620 $254,767 $134,702 $389,469 $355,383 $162,370 $517,753 

2016 $389,387 

$147,662 $537,049 $440,205 $158,610 $598,815 $270,844 $122,034 $392,878 $380,484 $148,597 $529,081 

2017 $456,131 

$140,489 $596,620 $508,924 

$151,985 $660,909 $277,893 

$115,149 $393,042 $458,034 

$141,839 $599,873 

2018 $436,909 

$136,349 $573,258 $462,573 $148,256 $610,829 $213,089 $111,006 $324,095 $416,551 $137,837 $554,388 

2019 $574,002 

$136,470 $710,472 $579,395 $148,785 $728,180 $531,794 $108,384 $640,178 $568,084 $137,956 $706,040 

2020 $460,536 

$129,773 $590,309 $464,863 

$139,907 $604,770 $426,672 

$99,498 $526,170 $455,789 

$129,209 $584,998 

Total 

Labor 

Earnings 

(NPV 7%) 

$6,572,649 

$1,288,844 $7,861,493 $6,961,577 $1,339,896 $8,301,473 $5,304,975 $1,159,782 $6,464,757 $6,526,397 $1,291,882 $7,818,279 

The types of business and industry sectors that are supported by the oil and gas economic activity are 

described in Table 4-18, as determined by the IMPLAN modeling effort. 

Table 4-18. Types of Industries Supported by Oil and Gas Development and Production 

Direct Indirect Induced 

Employment 

Development (Drilling 

and Completion) 

Oil and Gas Drilling; 

Support Industries for Oil 

and Gas 

Wholesale Trade; 

Construction; 

Management of 

Companies and 

Businesses; Real Estate; 

Legal Services; 

Independent Artists and 

Performers; Architecture 

and Engineering; Truck 

Transportation; 

Warehousing 

State and Local 

Government Education 

and Non-Education; Food 

and Beverage 

Establishments; Medical 

and Dental Offices; 

Wholesale Trade; Real 

Estate; Hospitals 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Pinedale RMP 4-129 

Direct Indirect Induced 

Production Extraction 

State and Local Education 

and Non-Education; 

Computer Programming 

Services; Management of 

Companies and 

Businesses; Support 

Industries for Oil and Gas; 

Services to Buildings and 

Dwellings; Legal Services; 

Social Assistance; 

Scientific Research; 

Maintenance and Repair 

of Highways 

State and Local 

Government Education 

and Non-Education; Food 

Services; Medical and 

Dental Offices; Wholesale 

Trade; Real Estate; 

Hospitals; General 

Merchandise Stores 

Labor Earnings 

Development (Drilling 

and Completion) 

Oil and Gas Drilling; 

Support Industries for Oil 

and Gas 

Wholesale Trade; 

Construction; 

Management of 

Companies and Business; 

Legal Services; 

Architecture and 

Engineering; Scientific 

Research and 

Development; Investment 

Services; Warehousing 

and Storage; Real Estate; 

Telecommunications 

State and Local 

Government Education 

and Non-Education; 

Medical and Dental 

Offices; wholesale Trade; 

Food and Beverage 

Establishments; 

Hospitals; Insurance; 

Motor Vehicle Dealers; 

Real Estate 

Production Extraction 

State and Local Education 

and Non-Education; 

Computer Programming 

Services; Management of 

Companies and 

Businesses ; Support 

Industries for Oil and Gas; 

Services to Buildings and 

Dwellings; Legal Services; 

Social Assistance; 

Scientific Research; 

Maintenance and Repair 

of Highways 

State and Local 

Government Education 

and Non-Education; Food 

Services; Medical and 

Dental Offices; Wholesale 

Trade; Real Estate; 

Hospitals; General 

Merchandise Stores 

Table 4-19 summarizes the breakdown of the IMPLAN employment and earnings estimates that lie within 

direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts, which were provided by the IMPLAN modeling effort. 

These percentages can be applied to the employment and labor earnings estimated above. For example, 

employment in the development phase under Alternative 4 is on average 9,211 jobs per year. Of these 

jobs, 51% or 4,698 are local to the study area, and of those 62% are in the drilling and support sectors. 

Indirect (22%) and induced (17%) impacts make up the remaining local jobs within the study area. 

However, development also contributes to jobs outside the study area (49% of all jobs). Of these total 

development jobs (within and outside the study area), 80% are drilling and support industry jobs, while 

the remaining 20% are indirect and induced employment industries noted in Table 4-18. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Table 4-19. Percentages of Employment and Labor Earnings by Type of Impact 

Direct Indirect Induced 

Development (Drilling and Completion) 

Employment 

(51% is local) 

80% of total 

62% of local 

11% of total 

22% of local 

9% of total 

17% of local 

Labor Earnings 

(46% is local) 

90% of total 

78% of local 

6% of total 

14% of local 

4% of total 

8% of local 

Production 

Employment 

(100% is local) 

33% 46% 21% 

Labor Earnings 

(100% is local) 

53% 38% 9% 

Table 4-20 aggregates (or averages) the economic impacts among the alternatives for oil and gas 

development and production; the results were generated through the IMPLAN model. 

Table 4-20. Summary of Oil and Gas Economic Impacts Under Each Alternative (2005$) 

for Federal, State, and Other Wells 

Net Present Value 

(7% Discount Rate)a Employment

Activity Average Wells 

Drilled per 

Year/Total Value 

of Production 

Total Labor 

Earningsb

Average Jobs 

Supported per 

Year 

Average Earnings 

per Job 

Alternative 1 

Oil and Gas Drilling 

and Completion 371 $6,572,649,168 9,280 $53,373 

Oil and Gas 

Production $51,857,359,602 $1,288,843,628 2,336 $55,858 

Total Oil and Gas 

Activity $7,861,492,966 11,616 $54,616 

Alternative 2 

Oil and Gas Drilling 

and Completion 391 $6,961,576,780 9,879 $53,373 

Oil and Gas 

Production $53,911,486,540 $1,394,272,777 2,452 $55,858 

Total Oil and Gas 

Activity $8,355,849,557 12,331 $54,616 

Alternative 3 

Oil and Gas Drilling 

and Completion 316 $5,304,974,868 7,332 $53,373 

Oil and Gas 

Production $46,664,511,232 $1,664,706,031 2,045 $55,858 

Total Oil and Gas 

Activities $6,969,680,717 9,377 $54,616 

4-130 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Pinedale RMP 4-131 

Net Present Value 

(7% Discount Rate)a Employment

Activity Average Wells 

Drilled per 

Year/Total Value 

of Production 

Total Labor 

Earningsb

Average Jobs 

Supported per 

Year 

Average Earnings 

per Job 

Alternative 4 

Oil and Gas Drilling 

and Completion 372 $6,526,397,364 9,211 $53,373 

Oil and Gas 

Production $51,979,605,742 $1,344,309,978 2,344 $55,858 

Total Oil and Gas 

Activities $7,870,707,342 11,555 $54,616 

a Total amount for the 20-year study period. 

b This column shows the present value of the total labor earnings over the 20-year period. The net present value is estimated 

using a real discount rate of 7% as recommended by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

4.10.6 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

The current pace of gas development and production is expected to include a 183% increase in the 

number of wells between 2006 and 2020, from 2,979 wells in 2006 to 8,439 wells in 2020; 85% of those 

wells are assumed to be federal wells. Approximately 1,026,790 acres would be available for oil and gas 

leasing. In addition, the current permitted AUMs of 107,907 would be maintained. Transportation 

planning for the planning area would not be conducted, and the Desert General Use area would be open to 

OHV use without restrictions. 

Impacts on Wyoming and U.S. Natural Gas Production 

Natural gas production within the planning area provides energy for the nation. Wyoming and the United 

States consume approximately 107,363 and 21,653,000 MMCF per year, respectively. In 2006, Wyoming 

produced approximately 2,000,000 MMCF of natural gas, which was approximately 9% of all U.S. 

onshore and offshore production. The PFO in 2006 accounted for 40% of Wyoming’s production and 

almost 4% of the nation’s production of natural gas. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

provides an overview of the natural gas market in the west: 

The western market is becoming a more prolific supplier and consumer of natural gas. Natural gas is the 

marginal fuel for dispatching power plants throughout most of the west. However, gas use is dependent 

on a complex set of factors: weather, storage inventory levels, pipeline capacity availability, hydroelectric 

resource availability, power-related imports, transmission line congestion, and other fossil-plant 

availabilities. 

The western gas market is much more robust than it was 5 years ago because of massive, across-the-board 

investments in all phases of the natural gas supply chain (upstream wells, gathering and processing 

facilities, interstate pipeline expansions, market area storage, and distribution systems). Because of 

expanded drilling, natural gas production in the Rockie Mountains now equals about 8 billion cubic feed 

per day (Bcfd) or 15% of total U.S. domestic dry gas production. Imports from western Canada supply 

another 2 to 3 Bcfd of natural gas to the west. California accounts for the more than one-half of total 

regional gas use. Overall regional gas use is split somewhat comparably among the residential, industrial, 

and power sectors. Physical and financial gas-related products are traded actively at numerous market 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

4-132 Pinedale RMP 

locations in the west. Storage capacity limitations in the southwest can influence pipeline operating 

conditions, especially during peak periods (http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mktgas/western.asp#mkt). 

Production within the planning area would peak in 2014, with 1,207, 1,279, 1,019, and 1,213 billions of 

cubic feet of natural gas produced annually associated with Alternatives 1 through 4, respectively. If the 

U.S. production remains fairly steady over the next 10 years at 2006 levels (as has been demonstrated 

historically over the past 7 years), in 2014, Alternatives 1 through 4 would account for 4.9, 5.2, 4.2, and 

4.9% of U.S. production, respectively. The difference between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 represents 

a 0.3% difference in U.S. production in the year 2014, which could have implications for the price of 

natural gas. 
It is expected that activities within the planning area would continue to support a significant percentage of the workforce o

area. This would be especially true for Sublette and Sweetwater counties, whose economies are more closely aligned w

industries. Sweetwater County has experienced a steady decline in employment throughout much of the past decade becand trona production, as well as reductions in oil and gas development. However, recent trends have indicated that emplo

again on the rise with the recent increase in oil and gas development throughout the region. Therefore, proposed 

administered lands would continue to be an important economic driver for southwest Wyoming. Management actions under Alternative 1 would continue to influence employment in the regional economy during t

Alternative 1, activities within the planning area would continue to support more than 11,700 direct, indirect, and induced j

during the planning period (Figure 4-2). Most of the employment is associated with oil and gas development and productrecreation activities and grazing operations would also generate employment within the study area. Eighty percent of the 

is associated with the development stage. On average, Alternative 1 provides for 11,605 annual jobs generated through 

which 61% are local jobs within the study area or 7,079 jobs (51% of development jobs are local, while all production jobA survey found that from 10% to 30% of the nonresidential oil and gas employees would consider relocation to Sublette 

available and affordable (Jacquet 2007), which could have implications for future employment that would be local to the ar

Pinedale RMP 

Table 4-21. Natural Gas Consumption and Production Figures (Millions of Cubic Feet

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Wyoming NG Consumption 98,569 112,872 115,358 107,060 108,314 107,363 NA U.S. NG Consumption 22,238,624 23,007,017 22,276,502 22,388,975 22,010,596 21,653,086 23,057,Wyoming NG Production (Total Withdrawals)1 1,634,987 1,747,476 1,836,115 1,929,040 2,003,826 2,111,766 NA U.S. NG Production (Total Withdrawals)1 24,500,779 23,941,279 24,118,978 23,969,678 23,456,822 23,507,471 24,536,Pinedale Field Office Estimated Production (Alternative 1) 

496,000 573,000 659,000 734,000 818,000 844,000 934,00

1Production includes both onshore and offshore total withdrawals. 

Source: Energy Information Agency. 

Impacts on Regional Employment Final EIS
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Impacts on Regional Income 

Land uses on BLM-administered lands would continue to be an important source of income for residents 

living near the planning area. Figure 4-3 summarizes potential impacts on total earnings. Under 

Alternative 1, activities within the planning area would generate approximately $7.9 billion, the present 

value (in 2005 dollars) in total labor earnings over the study period. This represents total economic 

impact, including direct, indirect, and induced earnings (and nonlocal labor earnings). On average, 

activities on BLM-administered lands are estimated to provide more than $395 million in earnings per 

year (in 2005 dollars) over the 20-year planning horizon. Earnings would be generated from continued oil 

and gas operations, downstream businesses that support this oil and gas economic activity, household 

spending, recreational and tourism activities, and grazing operations. The bulk of the labor earnings are 

provided by drilling and completion activities, representing more than 83% of the all labor earnings. Of 

these total oil and gas development and production labor earnings ($7.8 billion), approximately 55% or 

$4,312,262 is paid to workers residing within the study area. 

Labor earnings are only one component of personal income; investment income and transfer payments are 

also important components. According to the analysis outlined in Section 3.10.7, transfer payments have 

grown steadily across the study area over the past 15 years, at an average annual increase of 2%. 

However, investment income in Sweetwater and Lincoln Counties has been decreasing since 2000, and 

Sublette County has experienced a decrease of 6% between 2004 and 2005. Over the past 5 years, 

investment income in Sublette County has remained constant. Increased earnings have been offsetting 

these decreases in investment income to increase personal income overall. Under Alternative 1, these 

trends are likely to continue, especially throughout the development phase. Oil and gas earnings are 

predicted to peak in years 2010 through 2012 and taper off, start to increase again in 2016, peak at a lower 

level in 2019, and decrease to 2005 levels in 2020. Therefore, personal income would continue to grow 

through 2012 and likely follow the trend of the oil and gas labor earnings projections. However, 

investment income would likely fall as the area becomes more industrialized and appeals to fewer retirees 

and second-home owners. As earnings cycle and eventually taper off after 2012 and then after 2019, 

personal income would likely follow as earnings cycle and investment income decline. 

Real median household income, as analyzed in Section 3.10.7, is expected to increase until the gas 

development phase is over and remain constant or slightly taper off through the planning horizon. 

Sublette County’s rate of increase would be much higher that those experienced in Sweetwater and 

Lincoln Counties, as shown by the historic trend. However, if the cost of living continues to increase 

substantially, these income gains may be offset by the inflationary tendencies; this is most likely to occur 

in Sweetwater and Lincoln Counties where the rate of growth in real household income is lower. Sublette 

County’s household income would likely be reduced by the cost of living increases but would continue to 

rise through the oil an gas development phase. 

Impacts on Tax Revenues 

The analysis considered changes in potential mineral revenues under each alternative. The results 

summarized in Table 4-22 show the present value of total mineral revenues received as a result of gas 

production from 2000 through 2020, including federal mineral royalties, state severance taxes, and ad 

valorem taxes on production. 

4-134 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Table 4-22. Total Estimated Mineral Tax Royalties and Taxes from the Planning Area 

(2005$) 

Alternative Ad Valorem Severance Federal 

Royalties 

Total Mineral 

Revenues 

Alternative 1 $2,761,367,891 $2,832,656,411 $5,287,792,294 $10,881,816,597 

Alternative 2 $2,870,748,704 $2,944,861,041 $5,497,333,510 $11,312,943,256 

Alternative 3 $2,549,002,261 $2,549,002,261 $4,757,991,857 $9,791,846,490 

Alternative 4 $2,767,877,412 $2,839,333,984 $5,300,208,255 $10,907,419,651 

Total amount for 20-year study period. 

This table summarizes the net present value of estimated mineral royalties and taxes by alternative. Royalties and taxes have 

been discounted using a real discount rate of 7% as recommended by OMB. 

An average mill levy of 58.49 was applied to the value of production to determine the ad valorem tax revenues. 

Ad valorem and severance taxes revenues are based on oil and gas sales, which is estimated to be 91.04% of the value of 

production (WY Consensus Revenue Estimating Group, 10/05/06). 

Local governments would primarily benefit from changes in the ad valorem taxes collected by the 

counties on oil and gas production within the planning area. The ad valorem mill levy of 58.49 was 

applied to the value of production to determine the ad valorem receipts from oil and gas production within 

the study area. Approximately 20% of the ad valorem revenues accrue directly to the counties, while the 

remainder is funding for local schools and the State School Foundation (Wyoming Department of 

Revenue Annual Report 2006). Because most of the production is occurring in Sublette County, it would 

be the primary recipient of these tax receipts. Communities and towns within the county need to work 

with and request tax revenues for municipal projects and funding needs. In 2005, the ad valorem tax 

receipts accounted for approximately 95% of all Sublette County tax assessments, demonstrating the 

importance of this revenue source (ERG 2007). These production tax receipts paid to local governments 

often lag behind the funding needs spawned by the development boom, slightly delaying vital funding 

sources for needed infrastructure and government services. Figure 4-4 shows the estimated ad valorem 

taxes resulting each year from potential gas production in the planning area. 

It should be noted that as a result of new recapture provisions for school funding in Wyoming, much of 

the ad valorem tax revenue going to county schools is in fact recaptured by the State School Foundation 

and is now allocated by the state, making local school funding less certain. Because of the high perstudent assessed valuation in Sublette County, more than 50% of the school district’s revenue was 

recaptured by the State School Foundation Program in 2004-2005. This figure is likely to increase in the 

future. 

Local governments within the study area receive only a small percentage of federal royalties and 

severance taxes collected on production originating on public lands. The state severance tax applies to all 

mineral production in the state. This program is administered by the Wyoming Department of Revenue 

and is assessed on the current year’s production. The state severance tax rate is currently 6% of the oil and 

gas marketable value. Of these severance assessments, only a small fraction is distributed to local 

governments, from 2% to 6% (ERG 2007). The remainder of the funds is distributed to the Permanent 

Mineral Trust Fund, the State General Fund, and the State Budget Reserve Account. The State of 

Wyoming also benefits from production on federal lands. Federal mineral production is assessed a 12.5% 

royalty on the value of production, of which the State of Wyoming receives approximately half. The 

remaining half is deposited into the U.S. Treasury. 

Local governments also benefit from property and sales and use taxes paid by residents of the area. There 

are no income taxes in Wyoming. With increasing population, these revenues are expected to increase 

under this alternative. However, there are a considerable number (60%) of nonresidential gas employees 

Pinedale RMP 4-135 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

who live and likely spend most of their income outside the study area; these employees would not 

contribute property, sales, and use taxes to local governments. 

Activities in the planning area under Alternative 1 would continue to generate tax revenues for local, 

state, and federal government entities. The majority of these tax revenues would be associated with 

natural gas operations, which are expected to generate approximately $10.9 billion in mineral tax 

revenues over the study period. Sublette County is likely to receive approximately $550 million over the 

20-year time frame primarily from ad valorem tax receipts, while Lincoln County would also receive a 

portion of the ad valorem tax revenues. This tax revenue is vital to funding infrastructure, utility projects, 

community services, road maintenance, medical services, and many others within the study area. Grazing 

and recreational activities in the planning area would also generate tax revenues to government entities. 

Impacts on Local Government Expenditures 

County budgets have been increasing across the study area, as described in Section 3.10.5, likely a result 

of the population growth caused by increasing gas development and production activities. There are 

considerable costs to county governments for accommodating and meeting increasing infrastructure 

requirements associated with rapid growth and development. Utilities and service providers as well as 

municipalities are also faced with considerable infrastructure and capital investments expenditures. These 

municipal and county expenditures include public service provisions, such as education, road repair and 

construction, utilities (water, electricity, sewer, waste disposal), police and law enforcement, judicial 

facilities and services, medical services and facilities, emergency services, other social services, and often 

housing and land costs. 

Overall, the county budgets have been increasing at various rates, 300%, 28% , 23% for Sublette, Lincoln, 

and Sweetwater Counties, respectively, over the past 5 years (see Section 3.10.5 for additional details). 

Many of these increased costs have been attributed to capital investments projects to meet the increasing 

population growth driven by gas development in the areas (ERG 2007). Higher government labor costs 

are also occurring as the governments compete with higher-paying gas industry jobs. 

These impacts on local governments are expected to continue under this alternative. The building of new 

elementary and high schools is currently being discussed in Sweetwater and Sublette Counties. Pinedale 

recently finished building a new medical clinic. Road construction and improvement costs continue to 

increase as truck traffic and earthwork occur in the development of wells and the servicing of an 

increasing number of producing wells. Expenditures for the application of magnesium chloride to reduce 

dust impacts from traffic on dirt roads would continue to grow. Big Piney, Pinedale, and Mableton are all 

in the process of implementing or planning upgrades to sewer and water systems (ERG 2007). Steve 

Smith, Mayor of Pinedale, estimates that this cost would be approximately $25 million to $30 million for 

Pinedale within the next 5 years (personal communication, April 29, 2008). According to Marti Seipp, 

Sublette County waste disposal facilities currently cannot handle the increases in solid waste, and as a 

result, new solid waste facilities need to be considered (Seipp 2007). Requirements for more social and 

emergency services, police and law enforcement, medical and hospital services, judicial needs, child care 

services, educational infrastructure, and land acquisitions are expected to continue to grow under this 

alternative. 

Impacts on Population 

Any population change that could be associated with the implementation of alternatives would likely be 

linked to employment changes. Activities within the planning area would continue to support a significant 

percentage of the workforce in the study area. Activity within the planning area would continue to support 

a substantial percentage of the total jobs in the study area, and it also has been a contributing factor to 

4-136 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

changes in population growth between 2001 and 2006. Most of this employment would be concentrated 

in the oil and gas industry. Given that housing availability in the study area is limited and many of the oil 

and gas development jobs are seasonal or temporary, the population growth impacts would be lessened. 

Management actions under Alternative 1 would continue to support economic development that would 

influence population trends over the study period. 

The PAWG SETG has made predictions about population growth for Sublette County under a number of 

scenarios. Because housing availability is constrained within the county, the SETG believes the lowimpact scenario is most likely, at least in the short term. Under Alternative 1, it is likely that Sublette 

County’s population would increase steadily from approximately 6,926 in 2005 to 12,000 in 2015, a 73% 

increase over the 10-year period. After that time, the population would remain fairly constant or rise only 

slightly until 2030. Under Alternative 1, Sweetwater County would likely see a slight increase in its 

population; according to a school administrator and a law enforcement official, if housing is made 

available, there would be considerable in-migration to the county because there are many jobs available in 

both the tourism and the oil and gas industries (personal communication, Mike Dayton, October 15, 2006, 

and Sandy Vanvleet, October 18, 2006). Population rates have been stable in Lincoln County for the last 

few years; it is likely they would continue to remain stable under Alternative 1. 

Impact on Housing 

Although there is considerable housing development now occurring throughout the study area to meet the 

housing shortage, there does not appear to be any current excess housing capacity anywhere in the study 

area to absorb the predicted increases in population. Total rental units increased 288% in Sublette County, 

57% in Sweetwater County, and 10% in Lincoln County in the 5 years ending in 2006. However, 

increased supply barely kept up with demand. In 2006, rental unit vacancy rates were just 1.9% across the 

study area. As a result of these market forces, housing costs have increased substantially. For example, 

apartment rental and housing costs in Sublette County increased 81% and 62% between 2000 and 2005, 

respectively. Sweetwater and Lincoln Counties have also experienced considerable increases, although 

not at as high a rate (41% and 47% over 5 years, respectively). 

Population is predicted to increase by approximately 73% over 10 years, and approximately 37% over the 

next 5 years in Sublette County (SETG 2005). According to census estimates, the population in Sublette 

County increased by 17% between 2000 and 2005. The expected rate of increase in population is more 

than twice the historic population increase. In Sweetwater County, one official indicated that population 

rates would increase if housing were available (personal communication with Sheriff Mike Dayton, 

October 15, 2006). 

A housing survey (SETG 2005) indicates that a considerable number of nonresident workers would 

consider relocation to Sublette County if housing were more available and affordable. Approximately 

1,000 people are expected in Sublette County over the next 5 years. Using an average family size of 3.25 

as an example, these figures would equate to a need for at least 300 new houses over this time frame. In 

Sublette County, housing construction has been steadily increasing since 2000 (Sublette County 

Assessors Office), with the most recent figures indicating that almost 160 homes were constructed in 

2005, and 214 building permits were issued in 2006 (Sublette County Planning and Zoning Department). 

The housing supply of Sublette County has been struggling to keep up with new the demand. As a result, 

many regional businesses from ski resorts to gas stations to oil and gas companies must now supply 

housing to their employees to ensure retention. 

Availability of affordable housing in Sublette County is lacking, as evidenced by the considerable 

increase in housing costs in the past 5 years, the increase in population, and the comparatively low wages 

earned by many residents of the county (ERG 2007). The SETG argues that the study area’s lack of 

Pinedale RMP 4-137 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

affordable housing makes it difficult for those living in seasonal housing to move permanently to the area. 

This impacts the provision of town and county services because some workers (e.g., school teachers, 

county workers, waitresses, gas station attendants) may not be able to afford housing in the area. 

All these trends are expected to increase under Alternative 1, with housing costs likely increasing at 

higher rates because of the increase in population expected in the future. Hotel and motel vacancy rates 

would remain low year-round (ERG 2007). Seasonal constraints on hotels would be more pronounced in 

the summer when both the tourism and drilling seasons peak. Progressively more public and private 

enterprises would likely be compelled to build and maintain housing to ensure employee retention. The 

high cost of living, combined with a large migrant worker population saturating the motels and rental 

housing, makes recruiting new employees difficult for the multitude of support services needed for a 

growing community (Jacquet 2007). These trends are expected to continue under this alternative. 

Impacts on Community Stability and Connectiveness 

The PAWG SETG has identified a number of social issues and impacts associated with the current level 

of oil and gas production in the area, which is expected to continue with the current management 

situation. The three prevalent social impacts that are occurring in the area from the relatively rapid gas 

industry development are categorized as follows: (1) impacts on community stability and connectiveness; 

(2) impacts on quality of life; and (3) impacts on social and community services. The SETG identified a 

number of critical social issues or community factors—housing, crime and drugs, education, emergency 

response and social services, and traffic—that could potentially have social impacts from the continued 

management of the planning area. These impacts are addressed in the following areas: 

• Housing—addressed in the previous section 

• Crime and Substance Abuse—addressed in both Quality of Life and Social and Community 

Services sections 

• Education— addressed primarily in Section 4.10.4; mentioned in Social and Community Services 

• Emergency Response—addressed in Social and Community Services 

• Traffic—addressed in Quality of Life section. 

The current management situation for gas industry development, which includes a 183% increase in wells 

over 16 years, would continue to affect community stability and connectiveness because of the high 

proportion of temporary or rotational residents residing in the study area who are associated with the gas 

industry. As a result, “community stability, sustainability, and connectiveness is seen to suffer as these 

temporary residents place strains on community services and culture but have little to no community ties 

or affiliation.” (SETG 2006) 

Newcomers are expected to continue moving to the area until the development phase is complete. There 

are many temporary or transient workers who come to the area with differing value systems and ways of 

life, creating tension with residents. The Mayor of Pinedale, Steve Smith, summarizes some of the 

residents’ concerns with newcomers and temporary workers: 

“This has always been a welcoming community, but there is a certain sense of resentment 

I think from the people that have chosen to live in Pinedale and the people that have 

come here for a job. All of us in this room moved to Pinedale because of what the 

community had to offer: clean air, clean water, good place to raise your kids, low crime. 

I didn’t lock my door for 15 years in this community and I do now. So I think there’s a 

4-138 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

resentment between those who came here because of what the community had to offer 

and those who are here simply for the paycheck.”(Personal communication, April 29, 

2008). 

Pinedale is experiencing considerable boom growth characterized by housing subdivision proposals, 

planning meetings, and numerous socioeconomic and planning studies (ERG 2007). These types of 

activities can contribute to community anxiety and conflict over how to handle growth (Blevins et al. 

2005). All of these impacts are expected to continue under Alternative 1 throughout the development 

phase. However, the initial cultural and community shock felt by residents of the area would likely lessen 

as development continues (ERG 2007). 

Impacts on Quality of Life 

There are many values that can be indicators of quality of life. Obviously individuals and groups might 

not agree about which attributes are important to their individual quality of life. For example, one group 

of people might welcome new shopping areas in its community as an additional amenity, while another 

might view them only as visually unappealing and creating congestion and traffic. In 1996, one 

University of Wyoming survey (McLeod, Kruse, and Woirhaye 1998) asked Sublette County residents 

why they lived in the area. A number of values, including low population, overall lifestyle, scenery, and 

recreational opportunities were cited by the majority of residents. With the current management scenario, 

it is likely that the quality-of-life values derived from the low population of the study area would be 

affected by the area’s population growth. Quality-of-life values derived from recreation and scenery 

would also be affected in the portions of the study area where there is considerable oil and gas 

development and extraction. 

Overall, the continuation of the current management situation would cause dissatisfaction among 

individuals and groups that value remote and small-town western living. Some stakeholder groups, such 

as conservationists, motorized recreational groups, ranchers, sportsmen, younger residents, and wildlife 

protection groups, would likely perceive a decreased quality of life as a result of well drilling and field 

development industrialization of the area. In some cases, these groups might experience long-term 

impacts from a loss of open landscapes and solitude as a result of development activities in the planning 

area. Some residents might view increases in oil and gas development as negatively affecting their quality 

of life through various indicators such as increased traffic and congestion, higher crime rates, loss of open 

landscapes and viewscapes, and fewer opportunities (including less access to trails) for recreation. Others 

might be dissatisfied if portions of the planning area were not left in an undisturbed state. On the other 

hand, stakeholders such as some business interests, some long-term residents, and local and state 

government representatives, would welcome the economic growth and often support further development 

activities that might be tied to an increased standard of living (as an indicator of a better quality of life). It 

is expected that these conflicts would continue. 

A common quality-of-life indicator is the level of crime and safety. The SETG has collected considerable 

data and statistics related to crime, arrests, and domestic violence activity. The crime statistics for 

Sublette County indicate that the recent rates of increase in crime and numbers of arrests have vastly 

outpaced the already robust rates of increase in population and that these increases in crimes and arrests 

are highly correlated with changes in drilling activity. For Sublette County, the report states— 

“Changes in drilling activity have predicted 89.6 % of the changes in total reported 

index crimes during 1996–2004. The amount of drilling activity in Sublette County 

determines the population of temporary or rotational workers residing in the area, and it 

is likely this temporary workforce population plays a large role in driving changes in 

Pinedale RMP 4-139 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

crime...The rates of increase in reported crime, arrests, and incidents far outpace the 

increase in population.” (SETG 2006). 

It is also likely that the influx of newcomers would lead to an increased incidence of crime. Arrests in 

Sublette County increased 270% from 1995 to 2004. Regional law enforcement and police forces are 

taxed by these increases; the number of arrests per officer has more than doubled since 1995. Categories 

of crime that have increased include driving under the influence, outstanding warrants, simple assault, 

public drunkenness, and drug possession (Jacquet 2005). Sweetwater County is experiencing both 

increased crime and a proportional increase in population growth, so that the crime rate (number of 

incidences per population) has remained stable. Lincoln County’s crime incidences and crime rate have 

been constant over the last 6 years. 

With the increasing number of wells drilled in the area, (183% from 2006 to 2020), it is likely that under 

Alternative 1, the crime rate in Sublette County would continue to increase. It is likely that Sweetwater 

County would also be impacted by increasing crime incidences, but perhaps would experience a 

continued constant crime rate. However, increasing crime incidences would require more law 

enforcement personnel, police, criminal justice employees, and social services to address these changes. 

Given the historic trend for Lincoln County, the impact of crime under Alternative 1 on this county is less 

certain. 

Substance abuse violations were up 209% for adult males and 400% for juvenile males during 2000 to 

2006 in Sublette County (Jacquet 2007). Violations, however, may underestimate the extent of the 

regional drug problem. There is a consensus that crystal methamphetamine use is widespread among 

roughnecks in Wyoming. The highly addictive drug may be readily created using household ingredients. 

It is expected that drug use would continue to rise under Alternative 1 through the gas development phase. 

Traffic and congestion are also often cited as quality-of-life indicators. According to the SETG (2006) 

report, both the amount of traffic and the number of accidents have increased appreciably in the past few 

years on three major highways within the study area. Anecdotal evidence in both Sublette and Sweetwater 

Counties indicates there is considerable traffic congestion (for example, truck traffic from oil and gas 

activities). The highway between Rock Springs and Pinedale is experiencing significant amounts of 

traffic. The Mayor of Pinedale, Steve Smith, states— 

“The highway between Pinedale and Rock Springs used to be a kind of a nice scenic 

drive, and now it’s nonstop truck traffic. In fact, the governor requested money to put 17 

passing lanes between Pinedale and Rock Springs where there used not to be any. 

Secondly, the Highway Patrol used to have two highway patrolmen in Pinedale, and they 

were part of the Jackson Hole division. Now Pinedale has just received its own division 

with a lieutenant and eight patrolmen.” (Personal communication, April 29, 2008). 

Children in Pinedale are currently being bused from the south side of Pine Street to the north side because 

of the dangers of traffic (Roy Allen, personal communication, October 2006). In addition, Sheriff Dayton 

of Sweetwater County suggests that Rock Springs has become so congested that there are lines at gas 

stations and overcrowding at restaurants at lunch hour (personal communication, October 2006). The 

Pinedale area is also experiencing significantly increased maintenance costs for some of its roads as a 

result of the heavy truck traffic. With the additional oil and gas development and production anticipated 

under this alternative, it is likely that traffic, vehicle congestion, and road construction within Sublette and 

Sweetwater Counties would continue to increase, lowering the quality of life for those residents and 

groups who value remote and quiet lifestyles. 

4-140 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

There have been issues with air quality more recently as ozone data, collected at three monitoring sites in 

the area, recorded elevated ozone levels during 2005, 2006, and 2008 (see Table 3-5). The elevated ozone 

levels have been recorded during the winter months, primarily in February, which is atypical when 

compared to other areas of the country where ozone levels are elevated. The 8-hour ozone levels have 

ranged from 66 to 98 parts per billion (ppb). According to the EPA Air Quality Index guidance, levels 

from 85 to 104 ppb are unhealthy for sensitive groups, including children, the elderly, and people with 

respiratory problems, and these groups are advised to reduce outdoor activities. With ozone levels greater 

than 105 ppb, the general public should reduce outdoor activities. 

Higher ozone levels in the area are obviously a human health issue because high ozone can cause 

inflammation and irritation of the respiratory tract, particularly during heavy physical activity. Breathing 

ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and 

congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground-level ozone also can reduce lung 

function and inflame the linings of the lungs (WDEQ). During periods of higher ozone levels, sensitive 

groups should reduce the amount of time they spend outdoors. This is clearly a quality-of-life indicator 

for certain groups if they have reduced ability to spend time outdoors during these periods. 

These recorded higher ozone levels also impact tourism. Steve Smith, mayor of Pinedale, states— 

“Tourism’s been such a big part of our history over the last 20, 30, 50 years. People start 

reading about the quality of our air diminishing and the ozone alerts and the health 

alerts and the elderly and the young and the asthmatic shouldn’t be outside, that’s going 

to make a huge impact on our tradition of tourism in the community.” (Personal 

communication, April 29, 2008) 

One Pinedale town government official pointed out that a group from Texas has indicated that they do not 

want to come to Pinedale to recreate because the fresh mountain air is being compromised by pollution 

(personal communication, April 29, 2008). Under this alternative, impacts on air quality and quality of 

life are expected to continue along the trends experienced in recent years. As development and production 

increases over the planning horizon, the number of air quality exceedences could potentially increase. 

Nonmarket values associated with BLM lands such as recreation (e.g., hunting, biking, hiking, and OHV 

use), viewsheds, wildlife habitat, water regulation, climate regulation, waste assimilation, hydrological 

function, and flood control (among many others) are expected to decrease under this alternative. Because 

the decreases in these values are often difficult to quantify, it is not easy to fully understand the tradeoffs 

inherent to significant oil and gas development. It could be that under Alternative 1, the societal 

nonmarket values could decrease more than the value of the oil and gas resource extracted (see Section 

4.10.4 for an expanded discussion on Nonmarket Values). 

Impacts on Other Social and Community Services 

Activities within the planning area would continue to impact local government services in various ways 

(see Impact on Local Government Expenditures, above). As a result of increasing population driven by 

the gas development boom, the communities in the study area are coming under increasing pressure to 

provide infrastructure such as roads, water, and sewer lines to accommodate population growth within the 

study area. Social services such as education, emergency medical services, counseling services, childcare, 

and others are also needed to accommodate the increasing population. 

The SETG (2006) found that there has been a considerable increase in the number of emergency medical 

service response runs, as well as in the demand for firefighter services and counselling services in the 

study area. The report states that although the increased oil and gas activity in the area has likely 

Pinedale RMP 4-141 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

4-142 Pinedale RMP 

contributed to the need for additional services, the increases could also stem from other factors such as 

increased tourism and population growth, as well as an aging population. Because many of these factors 

are assumed to continue with increased oil and gas activity in the planning area, it is likely that the need 

for emergency and social services would grow. Because housing is in such short supply, it has been 

difficult to fill vacant (and necessary) employment positions in social and community service 

organizations. This may cause a shortfall in these social and community services in the short term. 

Crime, specifically in Sublette County, is increasing at a rapid rate (12% per year on average since 1999), 

and the increased crime rate has been shown to be highly correlated with the number of drill rigs in the 

area (SETG 2006). Crime rate increases put considerable strain on social (e.g., treatment and counselling) 

and emergency services, as well as other government services. Without additional housing availability, it 

would be difficult to increase the provision of these services, at least in the short term, unless housing is 

provided as a benefit. Both increasing crime and drug use in Sublette County would continue to place 

stresses on the medical and social facilities needed to address these issues. Pinedale has recently finished 

construction on a new medial clinic. The need for more of these types of community and county services 

are expected under this alternative. The incidence of crime would likely continue to increase in 

Sweetwater County under this alternative, which would also require additional social and medical 

services in the county. The crime impacts on Lincoln County under Alternative 1 are less certain. 

School enrollment levels in much of Sweetwater and Sublette Counties have been increasing since 2003 

(see Section 4.10.4 for additional details). As a result, school districts within the counties are 

accommodating this growing school-age population by constructing (or planning) new schools or by 

purchasing existing buildings to convert. 

4.10.7 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would provide for the most gas development and extraction, with a 204% increase in the 

number of wells between 2006 and 2020, of which 86% would be federal wells. Approximately 1,177,530 

acres would be available for oil and gas leasing. Specific timing and distance mitigations would be 

applied for wildlife habitat protection only to the extent required by law (e.g., as with T&E species 

protection). In addition, the currently permitted AUMs would be increased from 107,907 to 157,308. No 

recreation area management plans (RAMP) would be completed, and no new SRMAs would be 

established under this alternative. The Desert General Use area would limit OHVs to existing roads and 

trails. 

Impacts on Wyoming and U.S. Natural Gas Production 

Natural gas production within the planning area provides energy for the nation. As discussed under 

Alternative 1 impacts, in 2006, Wyoming’s natural gas production accounted for 40% of the nation’s 

production and the PFO production accounted for almost 4% of the nation’s production of natural gas. If 

the U.S. production level remains fairly steady over the next 10 years at 2006 levels, in 2014, Alternative 

2 would account for 5.2% of U.S. production, which is 1% higher than under Alternative 3 (lowest 

production) and 0.3% higher than under Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP). 
Employment associated with recreational activities would be expected to decline under this alternative (an approxim

recreation employment from that under Alternative 1) as a result of a reduction in recreational visitor days and increases Employment associated with grazing operations would be expected to increase under this alternative (a 45% increase 

Alternative 1) with its increased grazing opportunities. Figure 4-2 summarizes the employment impacts associated with eacUnder Alternative 2, activities within the planning area would be expected to increase employment by approximately 75

than under Alternative 1. Table 4-16 compares the economic impacts of oil and gas activities under each of the alternativesperiod, total employment would be expected to average more than 12,500 jobs per year, including direct, indirect, and inincrease in oil and gas development activity would be expected to result in increased employment, although only 4completion employees are assumed to reside within the study area personal communication, Pinedale Anticline Operat

average, Alternative 2 provides for 12,330 annual jobs generated through oil and gas activities, of which 61% are loinduced jobs within the study area or 7,521 jobs (51% of total development jobs are local, while all production jobs are con

found that from 10% to 30% of the nonresidential oil and gas employees would consider relocation to Sublette County if 

and affordable (Jacquet 2007), which could have implications for future employment that would be local to the area. 

Pinedale RMP 

Table 4-23. Natural Gas Consumption and Production Figures (Millions of Cubic Feet

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Wyoming NG Production (Total Withdrawals)1

1,634,987 1,747,476 1,836,115 1,929,040 2,003,826 2,111,766 NA 

U.S. NG Production (Total Withdrawals)1 24,500,779 23,941,279 24,118,978 23,969,678 23,456,822 23,507,471 24,536,3Pinedale Field Office Estimated Production (Alternative 2) 

496,000 573,000 659,000 734,000 818,000 863,000 964,000 

1Production includes both onshore and offshore total withdrawals. 

Source: Energy Information Agency. 

Impacts on Regional Employment Final EIS
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Impacts on Regional Income 

Increased oil and gas drilling and production under Alternative 2 would be expected to increase total labor 

income in the study area over the 20-year time frame compared with that for Alternative 1. Under this 

alternative, the present value of regional labor income would be expected to be approximately $8.4 

billion, a 6% increase from that under Alternative 1. However, a reduction in recreational visitor days 

would be expected to decrease income to businesses supporting these activities; the analysis predicts a 

14% decrease in labor income for recreational income compared to that under Alternative 1. Labor 

earnings from BLM-administered activities would generate on average $418 million in labor earnings per 

year. Oil and gas activities consist of approximately $8.3 billion in labor earnings (99% of all labor 

earnings), of which 5% or $4.6 billion is paid to workers residing within the study area. Figure 4-3 

summarizes the labor earnings under each of the alternatives. Grazing labor income is expected to 

increase under this alternative by approximately 45% compared to that under Alternative 1. 

Labor earnings are only one component of personal income; investment income and transfer payments are 

also important components. According to the analysis outlined in Section 3.10.7, transfer payments have 

grown steadily across the study area over the past 15 years, at an average annual increase of 2%. 

However, investment income in Sweetwater and Lincoln Counties has been decreasing since 2000, and 

Sublette County has experienced a decrease of 6% between 2004 and 2005. 

Increased earnings have been offsetting these decreases in investment income to increase personal income 

overall. Under Alternative 2, personal income trends are likely to follow those of gas labor earnings, 

especially throughout the development phase. Well development earnings are predicted to peak in 2010 

and taper off in a cyclic pattern to 2005 levels in 2020. Therefore, personal income would continue to 

grow through 2010, driven by gas development labor earning increases. However, investment income 

would likely fall at a greater rate compared to that under Alternative 1 as the area becomes more 

industrialized and appeals to fewer retirees and second-home owners. As earnings fluctuate and taper off 

after 2019, personal income would likely follow as earning levels fluctuate and investment income falls. 

Impacts on Tax Revenues 

Tax revenues associated with activities in the planning area would be expected to increase under 

Alternative 2. Table 4-22, p. 4-135 compares the tax revenues associated with each of the alternatives. 

This increase would be mainly attributable to the increase in gas production expected under this 

alternative. The total present value of mineral tax revenues accruing to federal, state, and local 

governments would be expected to exceed $11 billion under this alternative, which represents a 4% 

increase from that under Alternative 1. The reduction in recreational activities would also be expected to 

negatively impact tax revenues. Figure 4-4 shows the estimated ad valorem taxes resulting each year from 

potential gas production in the planning area under all alternatives. 

Most of the production is occurring in Sublette County, and therefore it would be the primary recipient of 

ad valorem tax receipts from this mineral production. Sublette County can expect to receive 

approximately 20% of ad valorem tax revenues, or $574 million over the 20-year time period, an increase 

of $24 million or 4% over that under Alternative 1. Lincoln County would also receive a portion of these 

ad valorem tax revenues. In 2005, the ad valorem tax receipts accounted for approximately 95% of all 

Sublette County tax assessments, demonstrating the importance of this revenue source (ERG 2007). 

These production tax receipts paid to local governments often lag behind the funding needs spawned by 

the development boom, slightly delaying vital funding sources for needed infrastructure and government 

services. 

It should be noted that due to new recapture provisions for school funding in Wyoming, much of the ad 

4-144 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

valorem tax revenue going to county schools is in fact recaptured by the State School Foundation and is 

now allocated by the state, making school funding less certain. As a result of the high per-student 

assessed valuation in Sublette County more than 50% of the school district’s revenue was recaptured by 

the State School Foundation Program in 2004–2005. This figure is likely to increase in the future. 

Local governments within the study area receive only a small percentage of federal royalties and 

severance taxes collected on production originating on public lands. The state severance tax applies to all 

mineral production in the state. Local governments also benefit from property and sales and use taxes 

paid by residents of the area. There are no income taxes in Wyoming. With increasing population, these 

revenues are expected to increase under this alternative. However, there are a considerable number (60%) 

of nonresidential gas employees that likely spend most of their income outside the study area; these 

employees would not contribute property and sales taxes to local governments, and the downstream 

induced spending does not contribute to the local study area economy. 

Activities in the planning area under Alternative 2 would increase tax revenues for local, state, and federal 

government entities compared to that under Alternative 1. The majority of these tax revenues would be 

associated with natural gas operations, which are expected to generate approximately $11.3 billion in 

mineral tax revenues over the study period. Sublette County is likely to receive approximately $574 

million over the 20-year time frame primarily from ad valorem tax receipts, while Lincoln County would 

also receive a portion of the ad valorem tax revenues. This tax revenue is vital to funding infrastructure, 

utility projects, community services, road maintenance, medical services, and many others within the 

study area. 

Impacts on Local Government Expenditures 

County budgets have been increasing across the study area, likely a result of the population growth 

caused by increasing gas development and production activities. There are considerable costs to local 

governments in accommodating and meeting increasing infrastructure requirements associated with rapid 

growth and development. Utilities and service providers as well as municipalities also face considerable 

infrastructure and capital investment expenditures. These municipal and county expenditures include 

public service provisions, such as education, road repair and construction, police and law enforcement, 

judicial facilities and services, medical services and facilities, child care services, emergency services, 

other social services, utilities (water, electricity, sewer, waste disposal), and often housing and land 

acquisition costs. All these fiscal impacts, as examined under Alternative 1, are expected to be 

exacerbated under Alternative 2, which has the highest amount of well development and production. 

Under this alternative, the county and local government expenditures are likely to be highest, compared 

with those under other alternatives, as the local governments plan for, absorb, and accommodate 

increased population and the associated infrastructure, utilities, and services. 

Impacts on Population 

Activities within the planning area under this alternative would be expected to increase employment on 

average by more that 700 jobs per year than under Alternative 1, of which 61% are jobs held by local 

residents. The increase in employment would mostly be tied to increased oil and gas development. Under 

these assumptions, it is likely that the population would increase at a higher rate under this alternative, as 

a result of additional gas and downstream supporting workers and their families moving to the study area 

to fill needed positions. 

Although the temporary or seasonal nature of the employment would lessen the population impact, these 

employees would require housing during their stays, which would put further strains on the area’s 

housing needs. In addition, a housing survey done by SETG (2006, http://sublette-se.org/survey.html) 

Pinedale RMP 4-145 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

found that a majority of the workers in the gas industry surveyed were thinking about relocating or 

planning on relocating to the Pinedale area. With 612 more wells proposed to be drilled under this 

alternative than under Alternative 1, there would be greater need for workers, which would increase the 

population and thus the need for housing. The PAWG SETG estimates conservatively that population will 

increase by 73% between 2006 and 2015, bringing an additional 5,074 people to Sublette County during 

the next 10 years. With higher employment pressures from this alternative, the future population levels 

would likely be realized, and possibly with greater rates of growth if more oil and gas employees can find 

available housing. 

Impacts on Housing 

All the housing trends (as described in Section 4.10.5) are expected to increase under Alternative 2 and 

would likely be exacerbated by the increased drilling and production associated with this alternative. 

Under this alternative, there would be additional demands for resident and nonresident employees 

associated with gas drilling and downstream economic activities, putting pressure on already strained 

housing shortages. Housing costs would likely be higher under this alternative relative to Alternative 1, 

because of the additional expected increases in population. Hotel and motel vacancy rates would remain 

low year-round as tourism and gas workers vie for available housing. It is possible that hotels and motels 

may be primarily occupied by gas field service employees and contractors; this phenomenon could 

adversely impact regional tourism. Seasonal constraints on hotels would likely be more pronounced in the 

summer when the tourism and gas drilling season are both at peak. The high cost of living, combined with 

a large migrant worker population saturating the motels and rental housing, would make recruiting new 

employees more difficult for the multitude of support services needed for a growing community (Jacquet 

2007). It is possible that regional businesses would have more trouble under these alternative (relative to 

Alternative 1) retaining employees without providing housing or dramatically raising wages. The trend 

toward mobile housing units parked on the street could also be exacerbated. Public service employees 

without employee-provided housing may be forced to commute long distances, which could contribute to 

the difficulty in retaining employees. 

Impacts on Community Stability and Connectiveness 

Increasing the number of wells by 204% over the next 14 years would likely further affect community 

stability and connectiveness because of the high proportion of temporary or rotational residents associated 

with the oil and gas industry, who would be residing in the study area. As a result, “[C]ommunity 

stability, sustainability, and connectiveness is seen to suffer as these temporary residents place strains on 

community services and culture but have little to no community ties or affiliation.” (SETG 2006) Under 

Alternative 2, it is expected that impacts on housing (both rentals and owned real estate) from population 

growth and the seasonal influx of workers would be affected by the increased oil and gas development in 

the planning area. Increasing the employment, population, and the number of nonresidential or rotational 

workers would likely have a greater impact on the amount of affordable housing, compared with the 

current management situation. As a result, it is likely that community connectiveness and stability would 

be further affected as well, at least in the short term. 

Under Alternative 2, there would likely be an increase in population and continued influxes of newcomers 

(both seasonal and full-time residents). Often, this can lead to an erosion of social integration and 

community satisfaction, at least during the boom period. There are certainly social community changes 

occurring from the current and increasing gas development, but these changes are secondary to the 

existence and importance of what individuals and the communities perceive as social disruption. The 

potential for social disruption is highest under this alternative. 

4-146 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

In addition, Pinedale is experiencing considerable boom growth characterized by housing subdivision 

proposals, planning meetings, and numerous socioeconomic and planning studies (ERG 2007). These 

types of activities can contribute to community anxiety and conflict over how to handle growth (Blevins 

et al. 2005). All of these impacts are expected to be exacerbated under Alternative 2 throughout the 

development phase. However, the initial cultural and community shock felt by residents of the area would 

likely lessen as development continues (ERG 2007). 

Impacts on Quality of Life 

The management of the planning area under this alternative would likely contribute to the highest rates of 

population growth within the study area compared to those from the other alternatives. Social impacts 

would also be highest under this alternative, as the study area attempts to accommodate the 

“industrialization” and to support more oil and gas operations. Communities across the study area would 

be impacted as they struggle with issues such as population growth; increasing crime and traffic; and 

increasing demands for housing, social services, police and law enforcement, educational facilities, 

medical facilities, governmental services, infrastructure, and so forth. These community stresses would be 

highest under this alternative. 

Many of the communities in the northern part of the study area were also attracting owners of second 

homes and retirees, who might be less likely to support further development because it affects the natural 

characteristics of the area to which these individuals are attracted. These types of conflicts would be 

greatest under this alternative. Recent anecdotal evidence from realtors and BEA data indicates that both 

investment income and second home sales have recently declined in Sublette County. 

Under Alternative 2, it is likely that residents who value low population and remote and quiet lifestyles 

would be affected by the increased growth in the study area. People who believe that recreation, scenery, 

and lifestyle are important to their quality of life might also be affected in those portions of the study area 

where there is considerable oil and gas development and extraction. 

In general, however, residents of Sublette and Sweetwater Counties have been found to favor a balance 

between gas development and environmental preservation (see Section 3.10.9). Increased oil and gas 

development would be expected to have localized impacts on wildlife resources within the planning area. 

These impacts could be detrimental to certain groups, such as conservation, recreation (including 

hunting), and tourism-focused groups within the study area who value recreational and scenic/visual 

resources, which would also be expected to decline further under this alternative. This would also affect 

certain lifestyles within the study area. 

Some stakeholder groups would view the increase in gas development as affecting their quality of life 

through increased traffic and congestion, higher crime rates, loss of open landscapes and viewscapes, and 

causing fewer opportunities and less access to trails for recreation. On the other hand, local business 

interests and some residents might support further development activities, as standards of living increase 

(as an indicator of better quality of life). Others may be incensed if areas within the planning area are 

industrialized and remain industrial for the foreseeable future. It is expected that these conflicts would be 

further exacerbated by the higher level of oil and gas development. 

A common quality-of-life indicator is the level of crime and safety. Because the development under 

Alternative 2 is highest, it is likely that in Sublette County the increase in the rate of crime would be the 

greatest under this alternative, because there appears to be a considerable correlation between crime rate 

and drill rig activity (SETG 2006). It is likely the incidence of crime would increase in Sweetwater 

County, but this increase could be proportionate to the expected increase in population. Regardless, under 

this alternative, the incidence of crime would likely be the highest, requiring more law enforcement and 

Pinedale RMP 4-147 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

police and more criminal justice and social services employees to address the changes in crime. The 

impact on crime in Lincoln County is less certain. 

Substance abuse violations have also been increasing between 2000 and 2006, and these figures may be 

underestimating the extent of the regional drug problem. There is a consensus that crystal 

methamphetamine use is widespread among roughnecks in Wyoming. It is likely that the increased 

natural gas development under Alternative 2 would exacerbate these trends. 

According to the SETG (2006) report, both the amount of traffic and the number of accidents have 

increased appreciably in the past few years on three major highways within the study area. Anecdotal 

evidence in both Sublette and Sweetwater Counties indicates there is considerable traffic congestion (for 

example, truck traffic from oil and gas activities). The Pinedale area is also incurring significantly 

increased maintenance costs on some of its roads as a result of heavy truck traffic. With this alternative 

having the highest amount of oil and gas development and production within the study area, it is likely 

that traffic, vehicle congestion, and road construction within the study area would continue to increase, 

lowering the quality of life for those residents and groups who value rural lifestyles. 

There have been issues with air quality more recently as ozone data collected at three monitoring sites in 

the area recorded elevated ozone levels during 2005, 2006, and 2008 (see Table 3-5). Higher ozone levels 

in the area are obviously a human health issue, because high ozone can cause inflammation and irritation 

of the respiratory tract, particularly during heavy physical activity. Breathing ozone can trigger a variety 

of health problems, including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen 

bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma (WDEQ). During periods of higher ozone levels, sensitive groups 

should reduce the amount of time they spend outdoors. 

Not only are these higher ozone levels a health concern, but they are also clearly a quality-of-life indicator 

for certain groups, if they have reduced ability to spend time outdoors during these periods. In addition, 

the recording of these higher ozone levels also impacts tourism as word spreads of decreased air quality in 

the area. Under this alternative, impacts on air quality and quality of life are expected to be exacerbated 

by the increased development and production experienced under this alternative. As development and 

production increases at a greater rate over the planning horizon, these air quality impacts are likely to be 

more severe under this alternative compared to those under Alternative 1. 

Nonmarket values provided by BLM lands in the Pinedale planning area include recreation (e.g., hunting, 

biking, hiking, and ATV use), viewsheds, wildlife habitat, water regulation, climate regulation, waste 

assimilation, hydrological function, and flood control (among many others). It is likely that with the 

highest increases in oil and gas development (205% more wells) under this alternative, many of the 

nonmarket values associated with BLM lands would significantly decrease in value. For example, with 

more surface and subsurface disturbances associated with drilling wells, there may be erosion, area 

closures, or an introduction of pollutants into water supply aquifers, resulting in decreases in the values 

associated with water quality, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, scenery, and others. Because the 

decreases in these values are often difficult to quantify, it is not easy to fully understand the tradeoff 

inherent to significant oil and gas development. It is possible that under Alternative 2, which provides for 

the highest level of oil and gas activity, the societal nonmarket values would decrease significantly more 

than the value of the oil and gas resource extracted (see Section 4.10.4 for an expanded discussion on 

Nonmarket Values). 

Impacts on Other Social and Community Services 

Activities within the planning area could cause impacts on local government services in various ways. As 

discussed above, the activities within the planning area under this alternative are expected to support an 

4-148 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

additional 700 people per year in the workforce in the years to come compared to Alternative 1. Because 

the greatest amount of oil and gas development is expected under this alternative, it is likely that the need 

for emergency, medical, fire fighting, counselling, law enforcement, child care, and other social services 

would also be greatest under this alternative. Without additional funding, greater gas development and 

operations would further strain the social infrastructure and the ability to provide services. 

The crime rate, specifically in Sublette County, is increasing rapidly (12% per year on average since 

1999), and the increase in crime has been shown to be highly correlated with the number of drill rigs in 

the area. With the highest amount of oil and gas development expected under Alternative 2, it is likely 

that crime incidences would continue to increase in Sublette and Sweetwater Counties. Crime increases 

put considerable strain on social (e.g., treatment and counselling) and emergency services, as well as on 

other government services. Drug use is also increasing, at least in part of the study area experiencing the 

most development. Without additional housing availability, it would be difficult to increase the delivery 

of services to address crime and drug use (i.e., police, social services), at least in the short term. 

School enrollment levels in much of Sweetwater and Sublette Counties have been increasing since 2003 

(see Section 4.10.4 for additional education impacts). As a result, school districts within the counties 

would need to accommodate the growing school-age population by constructing new schools or by 

purchasing existing buildings to convert. Many capital investment projects are underway or in the 

planning phase. 

4.10.8 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 allows for the least amount of oil and gas development, which includes a 117% increase in 

the number of wells between 2006 and 2020, of which 81% would be federal wells. There would be 

approximately 487,360 acres available for oil and gas leasing. In addition, the planning area would be 

divided into three areas for management of oil and gas activity. Permitted use for livestock would be 

reduced from 107,907 AUMs to 84,000 AUMs. Transportation planning would be required in all areas to 

reduce road density. OHV use in the Desert General Use area would be limited to existing roads and 

trails. 

Impacts on Wyoming and U.S. Natural Gas Production 

Natural gas production within the planning area provides energy for the nation. As discussed under 

Alternative 1 impacts, in 2006, Wyoming’s natural gas production accounted for 40% of the nation’s 

production and the PFO production accounted for almost 4% of the nation’s production of natural gas. If 

the U.S. production remains fairly steady over the next 10 years at 2006 levels, in 2014, Alternative 3 

would account for 4.2% of U.S. production. Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 4 (Proposed RMP) is 

0.7% lower in terms of a percentage of U.S. production, while compared to Alternative 2 (highest 

production), Alternative 3 is 1% lower as a percentage of U.S. production. 

Table 4-24. Natural Gas Consumption and Production Figures (Millions of Cubic Feet) 

2001 2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

%Change 

2001–

2006/7 

Wyoming NG 

Production 

(Total 

Withdrawals)1

1,634,98

7 

1,747,47

6 

1,836,11

5 

1,929,04

0 

2,003,82

6 

2,111,76

6 NA 29% 

Pinedale RMP 4-149 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

4-150 Pinedale RMP 

2001 2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

%Change 

2001–

2006/7 

Pinedale 

Field Office 

Estimated 

Production 

(Alternative 

3) 

496,000 573,000 659,000 734,000 818,000 794,000 856,000 73% 

U.S. NG 

Production 

(Total 

Withdrawals)1

24,500,7

79 

23,941,2

79 

24,118,9

78 

23,969,6

78 

23,456,8

22 

23,507,4

71 

24,536,3

09 0% 

1

Production includes both onshore and offshore total withdrawals. 

Source: Energy Information Agency. 

Impacts on Regional Employment 

Under Alternative 3, management actions within the planning area would be expected to cause a 

reduction in growth in regional employment compared to that under Alternative 1. Over the 20-year study 

period, employment would be expected to average approximately 9,532 direct, indirect, and induced jobs 

per year, which are approximately 2,300 fewer jobs per year than are expected under Alternative 1. The 

analysis predicts that recreational employment would increase by 11 people annually under this 

alternative compared to that under Alternative 1. Figure 4-2 summarizes the employment impacts under 

the four alternatives. 

Oil and gas employment comprises 98% of average annual employment from BLM activities within the 

study area. On average, oil and gas activities account for approximately 9,400 jobs annually, a decrease of 

19% over those predicted under Alternative 1. Approximately 5,719 annual jobs are assumed to be held 

by people residing within the study area. Table 4-16 summarizes the oil and gas jobs estimated through 

the IMPLAN modeling efforts. 

Impacts on Regional Income 

Labor earnings under Alternative 3 would be expected to be $6.5 billion, which is 17% less than the labor 

income expected under Alternative 1 (at $7.9 billion). Labor earnings from BLM-administered activities 

would generate on average $325 million per year. Figure 4-3 summarizes the labor earnings for each of 

the alternatives. However, under this alternative, an increase in recreational visitor days compared to 

those under Alternative 1 would be expected to increase income to businesses and employees that support 

these activities. The analysis indicates that recreational income under Alternative 3 would increase by 

10% compared to the recreational income under Alternative 1. Income associated with grazing would be 

expected to decline by approximately 21% compared with that under Alternative 1. Oil and gas activities 

contribute to 99 % of labor income generated by BLM activities or almost $6.5 billion, of which 55 % or 

$3.6 billion is paid to workers who reside within the study area. 

Labor earnings are only one component of personal income; investment income and transfer payments are 

also important components. According to the analysis outlined in Section 3.10.7, transfer payments have 

grown steadily across the study area over the past 15 years, at an average annual increase of 2%. 

However, investment income in Sweetwater and Lincoln Counties has been decreasing since 2000, and 

Sublette County has experienced a decrease of 6% between 2004 and 2005. Over the past 5 years, 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

investment income in Sublette County has remained constant. Increased earnings have been offsetting 

these decreases in investment income to increase personal income overall. 

Under Alternative 3, personal income trends are likely to continue following those of oil and gas labor 

earnings, especially throughout the development phase. Under this alternative, well development earnings 

are predicted to peak in 2012 and taper off in a cyclic pattern to 2005 levels in 2020. Therefore, personal 

income would continue to grow through 2012, driven by gas development labor earning increases. 

However, investment income would likely remain constant or fall as the area becomes more industrialized 

and appeals to fewer retirees and second-home owners. As earnings decrease after 2012, personal income 

would likely decrease driven by decreases in well development labor earnings and in investment income. 

Impacts on Tax Revenues 

Tax revenues associated with activities in the planning area would be expected to be less under 

Alternative 3 compared to those under Alternative 1 (Table 4-22, p. 4-135). These tax revenues are 

mainly attributable to the oil and gas production expected under this alternative. The total present value of 

mineral tax revenues would be expected to be approximately $9.8 billion under this alternative, a 10% 

decline compared to total revenues under Alternative 1. Impacts on tax revenues would also be expected 

with the increase in recreational activities relative to those under Alternative 1, although the impacts are 

expected to be small. 

Local governments would primarily benefit from changes in the ad valorem taxes collected by the 

counties on oil and gas production within the planning area. Most of the production is occurring in 

Sublette County, and therefore, it would be the primary recipient of these tax receipts. In 2005, the ad 

valorem tax receipts accounted for approximately 95% of all Sublette County tax assessments, 

demonstrating the importance of this revenue source (ERG 2007). These production tax receipts paid to 

local governments often lag behind the funding needs spawned by the development boom, slightly 

delaying vital funding sources for needed infrastructure and government services. Figure 4-4 shows the 

estimated ad valorem taxes resulting each year from potential gas production in the planning area. It 

should be noted that as a result of new recapture provisions for school funding in Wyoming, much of the 

ad valorem tax revenue going to county schools is in fact recaptured by the State School Foundation and 

is now allocated by the state, making local education funding less certain for counties. 

Local governments within the study area receive only a small percentage of federal royalties and 

severance taxes collected on production originating on public lands. However, local governments do 

benefit from property and sales and use taxes paid by residents of the area. There are no income taxes in 

Wyoming. With an increasing population, these revenues are expected to increase under this alternative. 

However, there are a considerable number (60%) of nonresidential gas employees who live elsewhere and 

likely spend most of their income outside the study area; these employees would not contribute property 

and sales taxes to local governments. 

Activities in the planning area under Alternative 3 would continue to generate tax revenues for local, 

state, and federal government entities. The majority of these tax revenues would be associated with 

natural gas operations, which are expected to generate approximately $9.8 billion in mineral tax revenues 

over the study period. Sublette County is likely to directly receive approximately 20% of ad valorem tax 

receipts of $554 million over the 20-year time frame, while Lincoln County would also receive a portion 

of the ad valorem tax revenues. This tax revenue is vital to funding infrastructure, utility projects, 

community services, road maintenance, medical services, and many others within the study area. Grazing 

and recreational activities in the planning area would also generate tax revenues to government entities. 

Pinedale RMP 4-151 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Impacts on Local Government Expenditures 

County budgets have been increasing across the study area, likely a result of the population growth 

caused by increasing gas development and production activities (see Section 3.10.5). There are 

considerable costs to local governments in accommodating and meeting increasing infrastructure 

requirements associated with rapid growth and development. Utilities and service providers as well as 

municipalities are also faced with considerable infrastructure and capital investments expenditures. These 

municipal and county expenditures include public service provisions, such as education, road repair and 

construction, police and law enforcement, judicial facilities and services, medical services and facilities, 

emergency services, other social services, utilities (water, electricity, sewer, waste disposal), and often 

housing and land acquisition costs. All these impacts, as examined under Alternative 1, are expected to 

still occur under Alternative 3, but perhaps at a lower rate of increase than currently experienced, because 

this alternative has the least amount of well development and production. These county and local 

government expenditures would likely be lower under Alternative 3 relative to Alternative 1. 

Impacts on Population 

The decline in employment resulting from this alternative compared to Alternative 1 is approximately 

2,300 workers per year. However, this analysis estimates that this alternative would still require 

approximately 8,000 employees per year, which would likely contribute to the continuation of recent 

population trends in the study area. The population would continue to increase in Sublette County, 

increase slightly in Sweetwater County, and remain stable in Lincoln County. It is likely that a 

considerable number of these workers, likely close to 60%, would be temporary or seasonal, which would 

lessen the population impact. 

Impacts on Housing 

Currently, housing continues to be characterized by low vacancy rates, which provide upward pressure on 

rents and housing costs. Under Alternative 3, it is likely that these trends would continue at least in the 

short term. As building continues, it is possible that housing supply would increase, potentially better 

meeting housing demand from tourism, gas company employees, and support services, perhaps in the 

long term. Under this alternative, housing costs and rents are likely to be lower relative to those under 

Alternative 1, although many of the trends as described in Section 4.10.6 would continue. Some regional 

employers would need to offer housing to employees to encourage retention, but this phenomenon would 

not be as pervasive or impacting to regional businesses. With less resident pressure on housing, it is 

possible that more nonresident workers could permanently relocate to Sublette County, depending on the 

housing costs of the area. 

Impacts on Community Stability and Connectiveness 

Increasing the number of wells by 117% over the next 14 years would likely have similar impacts on 

community stability and connectiveness to those under Alternative 1. However, because the proportion of 

temporary or rotational residents associated with the oil and gas industry who reside in the study area may 

be lower under this alternative than under the other alternatives, the communities in the area would 

experience less social disruption from this alternative’s impacts compared with those impacts under the 

other alternatives. Under Alternative 3, the trends in the low availability of housing and the rising cost of 

housing would likely continue, at least in the near future. However, with the building of housing, the 

greatest potential in the future to mitigate the housing shortage could be under this alternative. The boombust cycle would still occur under this alternative, but the magnitudes of both the boom and bust levels 

would be lessened within the cycle. With fewer temporary residents and less pressures on housing 

4-152 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

availability (compared to Alternative 1), it is possible that under Alternative 3, more gas employees could 

potentially move permanently to the area creating eventual ties with the existing communities. 

Social community changes would certainly continue to occur from increased oil and gas activities under 

this alternative. Possibly, there could be impacts on social communities within the agricultural sector as 

these activities are reduced, restricted, and limited. Reducing opportunities to graze cattle on federal lands 

might affect the viability of ranching in the study area and lead to a further reduction in agricultural 

production and the ranching way of life. 

Impacts on Quality of Life 

Impacts on lifestyle are difficult to determine because people and groups have different ideas about which 

lifestyles are important. Management actions under this alternative could result in impacts on certain 

lifestyles. Although this alternative allows for considerable oil and gas development (increasing the 

number of wells by 117% between 2006 and 2020), it allows for the least amount of oil and gas activity. 

Certain population segments would prefer this alternative, because it would provide the greatest 

protection of wildlife resources, and therefore could provide more isolation and solitude than the other 

alternatives. Individuals such as retirees or amenity-driven residents who have moved to the area for its 

natural characteristics would likely perceive lifestyle and quality of life to be better under this alternative 

than under the other alternatives. 

Allowing for a smaller increase in oil and gas development in the study area would be expected to affect 

some residents, such as conservation, recreation (including hunting), and tourism-focused groups, that 

value recreational and scenic/visual resources and want to maintain the diversity of the area’s economy 

Some stakeholder groups, such as local business interests, oil and gas representatives, traditional 

extractive industry proponents, and perhaps local government representatives, who typically value 

economic growth, an increased standard of living, and a traditional western way of life, might perceive 

the smaller growth in oil and gas development and agricultural production under this alternative as 

decreasing their quality of life relative to that under Alternative 1. However, because this alternative still 

provides for a considerable increase in oil and gas development in the near future, it is possible these 

stakeholders might perceive a better balance with this alternative because it may better accommodate 

nonmarket values that can increase tourism and service sectors in the area, and it may decrease the 

magnitude of the eventual economic bust impacts on the communities and region. 

A common quality-of-life indicator is the level of crime and safety. The SETG has collected considerable 

data and statistics related to crime, arrests, and domestic violence activity. The crime statistics for 

Sublette County indicate that recent increases in crime and arrests have grown at rates that vastly outpace 

the already growing population, and further, that crime and arrests have been shown to be highly 

correlated with drilling activity. Under this alternative, oil and gas development would still continue in 

the future, but at lower rates than under the other alternatives. Crime would therefore likely increase as 

the amount of oil and gas development continues in Sublette County. In Sublette County, the crime rate, 

which has been shown to correlate with drill rig activity, is therefore assumed to still grow but at a lower 

rate than it would under other alternatives that provide for more oil and gas drilling in the future. 

Preliminary statistics on crime in Sweetwater County indicate that crime had been decreasing until 2004, 

and then the trend reversed and has been climbing. However, recently Sweetwater County is experiencing 

both increased crime and a proportional increase in its population, such that the crime rate has remained 

stable, which would require more law enforcement and police personnel in this area as well. Lincoln 

County has experienced low and stable incidences of crime. Under this alternative, it is less clear what 

would happen to the crime rates in Lincoln County. 

Pinedale RMP 4-153 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Evidence suggests that substance use would increase under this alternative at least in Sublette County. 

Drug abuse violations were up 209 % for adult males and 400% for juvenile males in the interval between 

2000 and 2006 in Sublette County (ERG 2007). Violations, however, may underestimate the extent of the 

regional drug problem (ERG 2007). It is likely that all natural gas development scenarios would 

exacerbate these trends. Alternative 3 has the least attendant gas development, so it is likely that this 

alternative would have the least attendant drug abuse. 

Traffic and congestion is also often cited as a quality-of-life indicator. With the additional oil and gas 

development and production within the planning area, it is likely that traffic, vehicle congestion, and road 

construction within Sublette and Sweetwater Counties would continue to increase, though at a lower rate 

than under the other alternatives. This would still lower the quality of life for those residents and groups 

who value a rural and remote lifestyle. 

There have been issues with air quality more recently as ozone data, collected at three monitoring sites in 

the area, recorded elevated ozone levels during 2005, 2006, and 2008 (see Table 3-5). Not only are these 

higher ozone levels a health concern, but they are also clearly a quality-of-life indicator for certain groups 

if they have reduced ability to spend time outdoors during these periods. The recorded higher ozone levels 

also impact tourism as word spreads of decreased air quality in the area. Under this alternative, impacts 

on air quality and quality of life are expected to be exacerbated by the increased development and 

production. As development and production increases, although at a lesser rate, over the planning horizon, 

these air quality impacts are likely to be less severe under this alternative compared to under the other 

alternatives. 

Nonmarket values associated with BLM lands, such as recreation (e.g., hunting, biking, hiking, and ATV 

use), viewsheds, wildlife habitat, water regulation, climate regulation, waste assimilation, hydrological 

function, and flood control (among many others), are expected to decrease under this alternative, although 

these nonmarket impacts would be lesser than those experienced under the other alternatives. Because the 

decreases in these values are often difficult to quantify, it is not easy to fully understand the tradeoffs 

inherent to significant oil and gas development. It is difficult to know whether the increases in the value 

of oil and gas would offset the decreases in nonmarket values (see Section 4.10.4 for an expanded 

discussion on Nonmarket Values). 

Impacts on Other Social and Community Services 

Alternative 3 allows for the number of wells on the planning area to more than double by 2020. 

Therefore, this level of development is likely to still cause impacts on local government services in 

various ways. Alternative 3 provides for a smaller rate of growth in oil and gas development, allowing 

more recreation activities than those from Alternative 1. It is likely that under this alternative, the need for 

emergency and social services would grow, though perhaps at a more gradual rate. Because housing is in 

such short supply, it has been difficult to fill vacant and necessary employment positions in social and 

community service organizations. This may cause a shortfall in these social and community services in 

the short term, until the housing availability situation is addressed. 

It is likely that the need for additional social and community services would continue and increase under 

this alternative. These services include emergency, medical, fire fighting, counselling, law enforcement 

and police, child care, and others. Greater gas development and operations would further strain the social 

infrastructure and the ability to provide services. For instance, changes in population and workforce 

would likely cause undue strain on infrastructure (e.g., roads, water, sewer and electric utilities, and 

schools). 

4-154 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Pinedale RMP 4-155 

Crime rates, specifically in Sublette County, are increasing rapidly (12% per year on average since 1999) 

and have been shown to be highly correlated with the number of drill rigs in the area. With increasing oil 

and gas development, it is expected that crime rates in Sublette County would continue to increase under 

Alternative 3, which would increase the number of wells drilled between 2006 and 2020 by 117%. 

Alternative 3 would likely have the least attendant crime given that this alternative has the least 

development. However, crime impacts would continue to strain social services (e.g., treatment and 

counselling services) and emergency services, as well as other government services. Without additional 

housing availability, it would be difficult to increase the provision of these services, at least in the short 

term. 

School enrollment levels in much of Sweetwater and Sublette Counties have been increasing since 2003 

(see additional educational impacts in Section 4.10.4). As a result, school districts within the counties 

would need to accommodate this growing school-age population by constructing new schools or by 

purchasing existing buildings to convert to schools, many of which are currently underway or in the 

planning stage. 

4.10.9 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

Under Alternative 4, the pace of gas development and production would be expected to be very similar to 

Alternative 1, which is the current management situation, with a 181% increase in the number of wells 

between 2006 and 2020, of which 85% would be federal wells. Approximately 1,024,880 acres would be 

available for oil and gas leasing. The planning area would be divided into three areas for the management 

of oil and gas leasing and development. In addition, the current permitted AUMs of 107,907 would be 

maintained. RAMPs would be developed to provide an array of outdoor recreation activities, settings, and 

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

Impacts on Wyoming and U.S. Natural Gas Production 

Natural gas production within the planning area provides energy for the nation. As discussed under 

Alternative 1 impacts, in 2006, Wyoming’s natural gas production accounted for 40 % of the nation’s 

production and the PFO production accounted for almost 4 % of the nation’s production of natural gas. If 

the U.S. production remains fairly steady over the next 10 years at 2006 levels, in 2014, Alternative 4 

would account for 4.9 % of U.S. production. The difference between Alternative 4 and Alternative 2 

(highest production) represents a 0.3% decrease in U.S. production, while the difference between 

Alternatives 4 and 3 (lowest production) represents an increase of 0.7%, in the year 2014. 
Labor income under Alternative 4 would be expected to be slightly lower in the study area compared with that under A

alternative, labor earnings would be expected to exceed $7.8 billion, which represents a decrease of less than 1% from Alactivities on BLM-administered lands are estimated to provide more than $390 million in earnings per year (in 2005 

income attributed to recreational activities and businesses would increase slightly under Alternative 4 from under Altimpacts from grazing would be expected to change relative to those under Alternative 1. Figure 4-3 summarizes poearnings. 

ter 4—Socioeconomics 

Management actions within the planning area under Alternative 4 would be similar to those under Alternative 1. The esummarized in Figure 4-2 (see Table 4-16 for a comparison of the oil and gas impacts among the alternatives). Over themployment would be expected to average more than 11,700 direct, indirect, and induced jobs per year, which would be Alternative 1. Slight declines in employment would be expected as slightly less oil and gas development would be peAlternative 1. Alternative 4 includes slight increases in recreational activities, which would be expected to have a small 

relative to that under Alternative 1. Employment tied to grazing would not be expected to vary from Alternative 1. Ocomprises almost 99% of the employment associated with BLM activities, or 11,555 jobs, of which 61% or 6,255 jobresidents. 

4-156 

Table 4-25. Natural Gas Consumption and Production Figures (Millions of Cubic Feet

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2

Wyoming NG Production (Total Withdrawals)1 1,634,987 1,747,476 1,836,115 1,929,040 2,003,826 2,111,766 NA U.S. NG Production (Total Withdrawals)1 24,500,779 23,941,279 24,118,978 23,969,678 23,456,822 23,507,471 24,53Pinedale Field Office Estimated Production (Alternative 4) 

496,000 573,000 659,000 734,000 818,000 842,000 932,0

1Production includes both onshore and offshore total withdrawals. 

Source: Energy Information Agency.

Impacts on Regional Employment Impacts on Regional Income Chap
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Earnings would be generated from continued oil and gas operations, businesses that support recreational 

activities, and grazing operations. The bulk of the labor earnings are provided by drilling and completion 

activities, representing more than 83% of the labor earnings. However, these labor earnings encompass 

both local employment and nonresidential employment. As indicated previously, the nonlocal labor 

component is approximately 60% of the workforce for drilling and completion operations (personal 

communication with Pinedale Anticline Operators, June 15, 2006). Overall gas development and 

production labor earnings are approximately $4.3 billion and are paid to workers within the study area 

over the 20-year planning time frame. 

Labor earnings are only one component of personal income; investment income and transfer payments are 

also important components. According to the analysis outlined in Section 3.10.6, transfer payments have 

grown steadily across the study area over the past 15 years, at an average annual increase of 2%. 

However, investment income in Sweetwater and Lincoln Counties has been decreasing since 2000, and 

Sublette County has experienced a decrease of 6 % between 2004 and 2005. Increased earnings have been 

offsetting these decreases in investment income to increase personal income overall. Under Alternative 4, 

these trends are likely to continue, especially throughout the development phase. Well development 

earnings are predicted to peak in 2010, cycle, and taper off to 2005 levels in 2020. Therefore, personal 

income would continue to follow the trends of the oil and gas labor earnings and peak in 2010. However, 

investment income would likely fall as the area becomes more industrialized and appeals to fewer retirees 

and second-home owners. As earnings fluctuate and decrease after 2012, personal income would likely 

follow, decreasing more significantly as both labor income and investment income fall. 

Impacts on Local Government Expenditures 

County budgets have been increasing across the study area, likely a result of the population growth 

caused by increasing gas development and production activities. There are considerable costs to local 

governments for accommodating and meeting increasing infrastructure requirements associated with rapid 

growth and development. Utilities and service providers as well as municipalities also face considerable 

infrastructure and capital investments expenditures. These municipal and county expenditures include 

public service provisions, such as education, road repair and construction, police and law enforcement, 

judicial facilities and services, medical services and facilities, emergency services, other social services, 

utilities (water, electricity, sewer, waste disposal), and often housing and land acquisition costs. All these 

impacts, as examined under Alternative 1, are expected to continue under Alternative 4 with similar 

amounts of well development and production. Under Alternative 4, these county and local government 

expenditures would continue to increase as infrastructure, community services, and other public service 

provisions are needed to meet the economic and population growth of the area. 

Impacts on Tax Revenues 

The total present value of mineral tax revenues would be expected to be slightly more than $10.9 billion 

under this alternative, a 0.2% increase from Alternative 1. No changes in impacts relative to those under 

Alternative 1 would be expected to occur on tax revenues as a result of changes in recreation or grazing. 

Figure 4-4 shows the estimated ad valorem taxes resulting each year from potential gas production in the 

planning area. 

Local governments would primarily benefit from changes in the ad valorem taxes collected by the 

counties on oil and gas production within the planning area. Approximately 20% of the ad valorem 

revenues accrue directly to the counties, while the remainder is funding for local schools and the State 

School Foundation (Wyoming Department of Revenue Annual Report 2006). Because most of the 

production is occurring in Sublette County, it would be the primary recipient of these tax receipts. These 

production tax receipts paid to local governments often lag behind the funding needs spawned by the 

Pinedale RMP 4-157 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

development boom, slightly delaying vital funding sources for needed infrastructure and government 

services. It should be noted that as a result of new recapture provisions for school funding in Wyoming, 

much of the ad valorem tax revenue going to county schools is in fact recaptured by the State School 

Foundation and is now allocated by the state, making local school funding less certain. 

Local governments within the study area receive only a small percentage of federal royalties and 

severance taxes collected on production originating on public lands. Local governments also benefit from 

property and sales and use taxes paid by residents of the area. There are no income taxes in Wyoming. 

With an increasing population, these revenues are expected to increase under this alternative. However, 

there are a considerable number (60%) of nonresidential gas employees who likely live and spend most of 

their income outside the study area; these employees would not contribute property and sales taxes to 

local governments. 

Activities in the planning area under Alternative 4 would continue to generate tax revenues for local, 

state, and federal government entities. The majority of these tax revenues would be associated with 

natural gas operations, which are expected to generate approximately $10.9 billion in mineral tax 

revenues over the study period. Sublette County is likely to receive approximately $554 million over the 

20-year time frame primarily from ad valorem tax receipts, while Lincoln County would also receive a 

portion of the ad valorem tax revenues. This tax revenue is vital for funding infrastructure, utility projects, 

community services, road maintenance, medical services, and many other services, within the study area. 

Impacts on Population 

Changes in regional employment under Alternative 4 would be similar to those characterized under 

Alternative 1. Management actions under Alternative 4 would continue to support economic development 

that would influence population trends over the study period. However, since housing availability is 

limited and many of the oil and gas development jobs are seasonal or temporary in nature, the population 

growth impacts would be less severe. The PAWG SETG has predicted population growth for Sublette 

County under a number of scenarios. Because housing availability is constrained within the county, the 

SETG believes the low-impact scenario is most likely, at least in the short term. Under Alternative 4, it is 

likely that the population would increase steadily from approximately 6,926 in 2005 to 12,000 in 2015, a 

73% increase over the 10-year period. After that time, the population would remain fairly constant or rise 

only slightly until 2030. 

Sweetwater County would likely see a slight increase in its population growth under Alternative 4; 

according to a school administrator and a law enforcement official, if housing is made available, there 

would be more in-migration to and population growth in the county, because there are many jobs 

available in both the tourism and oil and gas industries. Population impacts under Alternative 4 are less 

certain for Lincoln County. 

Impacts on Housing 

Under Alternative 3, the housing trends are expected to continue as described in Section 4.10.6, with low 

housing availability, rising housing costs, and difficulty retaining employees. Although there is 

considerable housing development now occurring throughout the study area to meet its housing shortage, 

there does not currently appear to be any excess housing capacity in the study area to absorb significant 

increases in population. Although the number of rental units is increasing across the study area, the 

vacancy rates are currently still 1.9% across all three counties, with rising housing costs. 

4-158 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Impacts on Community Stability and Connectiveness 

Alternative 4 would include a 181% increase in the number of wells over the next 16 years; this would 

likely continue to affect community stability and connectiveness because of the high proportion of 

temporary or rotational residents associated with the oil and gas industry, who would reside in Sublette 

County. As a result, “[C]ommunity stability, sustainability, and connectiveness is seen to suffer as these 

temporary residents place strains on community services and culture but have little to no community ties 

or affiliation.” (SETG 2006) 

It is likely that under Alternative 4, there would be continued increases in population and influxes of 

newcomers (both seasonal and residents). Often, this can lead to an erosion of social integration and 

community satisfaction, at least during the boom periods. Although many residents might not like the 

changes taking place in their communities as a result of this boom growth, according to social research 

(Brown et al. 2005), most residents eventually would reconcile their feelings regarding the new and 

changing community context over time. 

Impacts on Quality of Life 

Overall, BLM management under Alternative 4 would cause dissatisfaction among many residents who 

value remote and rural lifestyles and individuals or groups that are being displaced by development 

activities. Some stakeholder groups, such as conservationists, recreational groups, wildlife protection 

groups, amenity-focused stakeholders, local tourism businesses, and others would likely perceive a 

decreased quality of life as a result of well drilling and field development and continuing industrialization 

of the area. In some cases, these groups might experience long-term impacts from a loss of open 

landscapes and viewscapes and solitude as a result of development and production in the planning area. 

However, others in the community, such as those supporting gas interests, some residents, and perhaps 

local and state government representatives, might support further development activities that they might 

feel increase the economic well-being of the area and overall standard of living. It is expected that these 

conflicts would continue under Alternative 4. 

The crime statistics for Sublette County indicate that recent increases in crime and arrests have grown at 

rates that vastly outpace the already growing population, and that crimes and arrests have been shown to 

be highly correlated with drilling activity (ERG 2007). From this information and with the continued 

increase in the number of wells drilled (181% from 2006 to 2020) and operated in the study area under 

Alternative 4, it is reasonable to assume that the crime rate in Sublette County would continue to increase. 

Preliminary statistics on crime in Sweetwater County indicate that crime had been decreasing until 2004, 

and then the trend reversed and has been climbing (see Section 3.10.6). However, the population of 

Sweetwater County has also been increasing, so that the crime rate has remained stable in this county. 

The crime rate in Lincoln County has been stable, and it is lower than the state average. However, both 

Sublette and Sweetwater Counties would be impacted by increasing crime, requiring more law 

enforcement personnel and police, criminal justice employees, and social services to address the changes 

in crime. 

Substance abuse violations were up 209% for adult males and 400% for juvenile males in the interval 

between 2000 and 2006 in Sublette County (Jacquet 2007). Violations, however, may underestimate the 

extent of the regional drug problem. There is a consensus that crystal methamphetamine use is widespread 

among roughnecks in Wyoming. Alternative 4 would be characterized by less development than 

Alternative 2 and more development than Alternative 3. Therefore, it is likely that under Alternative 4, 

there would be more attendant drug use than Alternative 3 and less than Alternative 2. Drug abuse 

incidence is likely to increase at current rates. 

Pinedale RMP 4-159 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Final EIS 

Traffic and congestion is also often cited as a quality-of-life indicator. With the additional oil and gas 

development and production within the area under Alternative 4, it is likely that traffic, vehicle 

congestion, and road construction within the Sublette and Sweetwater Counties would continue to 

increase, lowering the quality of life for those residents and groups who value less traffic and congestion. 

It is less clear if traffic and congestion would increase in communities within Lincoln County. 

There have been issues with air quality more recently as ozone data collected at three monitoring sites in 

the area recorded elevated ozone levels during 2005, 2006, and 2008 (see Table 3-5). Not only are these 

higher ozone levels a health concern, but they are also clearly a quality-of-life indicator for certain groups 

if they have reduced ability to spend time outdoors during these periods. The recorded higher ozone levels 

also impact tourism as word spreads of decreased air quality in the area. Under this alternative, impacts 

on air quality and quality of life are expected to be similar to those experienced under Alternative 1. As 

development and production increases over the planning horizon, these air quality impacts are likely to 

continue. 

Nonmarket values associated with BLM lands, such as recreation (e.g., hunting, biking, hiking, and ATV 

use), viewsheds, wildlife habitat, water regulation, climate regulation, waste assimilation, hydrological 

function, and flood control (among many others), are expected to decrease under this alternative. Because 

the decreases in these values are often difficult to quantify, it is not easy to fully understand the tradeoffs 

inherent to significant oil and gas development. It could be the case that under Alternative 4, as could be 

under Alternative 1, the societal nonmarket values could decrease more than the value of the oil and gas 

resource extracted (see Section 4.10.4 for an expanded discussion on Nonmarket Values). 

Impacts on Social and Community Services 

Activities within the planning area would cause continued impacts on local government services in 

various ways. For instance, changes in demand for government services associated with projected 

population increases associated with drilling and production tied to the planning area would cause 

considerable strain on infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, and schools) and social services (e.g., medical 

and hospital facilities, counselling services, child care, and other municipal and county provisional 

services). As discussed above, the activities under Alternative 4 are expected to support a significant 

percentage of the workforce within the study area in the years to come. 

Because all factors are assumed to continue with increased oil and gas activity in the planning area, it is 

likely that the need for emergency and social services would grow. Under this alternative, the incidence of 

crime and drug use is expected to increase in Sublette and Sweetwater Counties. This puts considerable 

strain on social (e.g., treatment and counselling services) and emergency services, as well as on other 

government services. Because housing is in such a short supply, it has been difficult to fill vacant and 

needed employment positions in social and community services organizations. This may cause a shortfall 

in these social and community services in the short term, until the housing availability situation is 

addressed. 

School enrollment levels in much of Sweetwater and Sublette Counties have been increasing since 2003 

(see additional discussion of education impacts in Section 4.10.4). As a result, school districts within the 

counties would need to accommodate this growing school-age population by constructing new schools or 

by purchasing existing buildings to convert to schools, many of which are currently in the planning or 

construction phases. 

4-160 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

4.11 SOILS

This section presents potential impacts on soils from management actions for other resource programs. 

Existing conditions concerning soils are described in Chapter 3 (Section 3.11). 

4.11.1 Assumptions 

The analysis was based on the following assumptions: 

• On undisturbed rangelands and forestlands, natural erosion rates are minimal. 

• Erosion modeling for the planning area estimates that natural soil erosion averages 0.04 ton per 

acre per year on rangelands and 0.00 tons per acres per year on woodlands. 

• For the purposes of this analysis, water erosion is the primary mechanism for loss of soil 

productivity. 

• Erosion reduces soil productivity because topsoil, in which nutrients used by plants are most 

concentrated, is removed. 

• Eroded soil can be deposited as sediment at any point downslope or can be transported to water 

bodies such as streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. 

• The amount of sediment from upland soil erosion that is transported to streams and other water 

bodies is dependent on distance, slope, soil texture, filtering capacity of upland and riparian 

vegetation, and storm intensity and duration. 

• Vegetation removal and surface disturbance are the primary cause of accelerated soil erosion on 

the uplands. 

• The removal of vegetation increases the erosive force of overland water flow, decreases soil 

strength, reduces infiltration, increases runoff, alters soil structure, and reduces protection of the 

surface from raindrop impact. 

• Vegetation increases soil organic matter, aggregation of soil particles, and soil porosity, all of 

which increase soil resistance to erosion. 

• Soil compaction, though a very real phenomenon, is not considered to be widespread within the 

planning area. 

• Soil compaction is considered a localized impact common to activities such as livestock 

concentration areas, particularly during times when soils are wet, and high-traffic areas such as 

walking paths, hiking trails, or OHV areas. 

• Soil compaction increases water runoff and thereby promotes sheet, rill, and gully erosion. 

• Compacted soils are less accommodating to plant roots, and seed germination is difficult in such 

soils. 

• Surface disturbance on unstable slopes could cause changes in moisture content and weight 

distribution, which could result in landslides, slumps, and mudflows. 

Pinedale RMP 4-161 
Chapter 4—Soils Final EIS 

• Soil productivity could be reduced by downwind and downslope deposition from eroded soils. 

• Wind erosion can impact soil productivity in a similar manner as water erosion. Since no 

technologies similar to the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) exist to model wind erosion 

on rangelands, this analysis will be limited to impacts resulting from water erosion. 

• Short-term erosion impacts depend on the length of time it takes for the disturbed area to become 

revegetated with a self-sustaining, perennial plant community. For the purposes of this analysis, it 

is assumed that this will be a 0- to 5-year time frame. 

• Long-term erosion impacts are those impacts that continue after vegetation has become 

reestablished. They are due in part to changes in the vegetative community but to a greater extent 

to a surface area that remains void of vegetation, such as pads and roads. 

4.11.2 Methods of Analysis 

The WEPP soil erosion model was used to analyze impacts on the soil resource. WEPP is a data 

intensive-model. To facilitate this analysis, the Internet-based U.S. Forest Service (USFS) WEPP 

interfaces were used for erosion predictions using the “Disturbed WEPP” and “WEPP Road” modules. 

Erosion rates are inherently difficult to predict. The rates of erosion predicted by WEPP are within +/–

50%. Despite this apparent lack of precision, erosion rates generated by WEPP are adequate for 

comparing and analyzing impacts of the alternatives on the soil resource. 

Climatic parameters used by the WEPP model were developed using Pinedale, Wyoming, weather data. 

Both the Disturbed WEPP and WEPP-Road modules are limited to four soil textures (clay loam, silt 

loam, sandy loam, and loam); a clay loam soil texture was used for all erosion predictions. 

Disturbed WEPP has eight vegetative treatment options available: 20-year-old forest, 5-year-old forest, 

shrub-dominated rangeland, tall-grass prairie, short-grass prairie, low-severity fire, high-severity fire, and 

skid trail. By adjusting cover parameters, these vegetative treatment options can be applied to a wide 

variety of vegetative communities and land uses. 

All WEPP erosion analyses were conducted using a 50-year simulation. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the following parameters were used: 

• Slopes used in Disturbed WEPP: Upper slope 0%–45%; lower slope 5%–45% 

• Gradients used in WEPP-Road: Road gradient 4%; fill gradient 30%; buffer gradient 15% 

• Slope lengths used in Disturbed WEPP: 300 feet 

• Road length used in WEPP-Road: 200 feet 

• Rock cover used in Disturbed WEPP: 10%. 

4.11.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

The management of cultural and paleontological resources would have an indirect impact on the soil 

resource by restricting or limiting development. Cultural and paleontological investigations would have a 

minimal impact on the soil resource given the limited surface disturbance of such investigations and the 

fact that such excavations are usually conducted with hand tools. 

4-162 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

The following nonenergy-related construction projects and facilities would be proposed. Figures are given 

in acres per year over the life of the document. In any one year, disturbance from any one source may be 

greater or less than the projected averages. 

• Approximately 490 acres per year would be disturbed for the construction and improvement of 

roads and highways not related to oil and gas development. This would result in a short-term 

erosion rate of 3,018 tons per year. Following the reestablishment of vegetation, erosion rates 

would drop to 323 tons per year. 

• An average of 5 acres per year would be disturbed by the installation of telephone and fiber-optic 

cable, resulting in 31 tons of soil erosion per year in the short term and 3 tons per year in the long 

term. 

• Power lines would disturb 75 acres per year, resulting in 460 tons of soil erosion per year in the 

short term and 50 tons per year in the long term. 

• Communication site construction would disturb an average of 3 acres per year, resulting in 18 

tons of soil erosion per year in the short term and 2 tons per year in the long term. 

• Other facilities would disturb 58 acres per year, resulting in 355 tons of soil erosion per year in 

the short term and 38 tons per year in the long term. 

Livestock grazing would impact the soil resource. Livestock remove herbaceous vegetation that would 

otherwise be available to protect the soil surface from raindrop impact and overland flow. Natural or 

background erosion rates formulated by WEPP predict erosion to be 0.04 ton per acre per year. The cover 

values used in this prediction were based on in-the-field observations in vegetative communities similar to 

the planning area and took into account that these are grazed ecosystems. 

In those areas where livestock congregate, particularly during wet soil conditions, there could be some 

soil compaction. Livestock trails often develop along fence lines and in the vicinity of water 

developments and have the potential to concentrate water flow and create gullies. Implementation of the 

Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health (USDI, BLM 1997) would help ensure proper management of 

livestock and serve to minimize impacts on the soil resource. 

Surface-disturbing activities associated with minerals activities such as the construction of well pads, 

roads, and pipelines expose soils to the erosive forces of water and wind in both the short and long term. 

The vegetation management goal common to all alternatives is to maintain or enhance vegetation health, 

composition, and diversity and reclaim disturbed areas to desired plant communities (DPC), through 

noxious weed management and an emphasis on habitat for Special Status Species. These actions would 

indirectly benefit the soil resource by maintaining or improving vegetative cover. 

VRM would have few if any impacts on the soil resource. There is limited potential that through the 

management of viewsheds there could be an indirect impact on soils by lessening the acres of surface 

disturbance. 

Actions taken to minimize impacts on surface water and groundwater resources and recharge areas would 

directly benefit the soil resource. To meet water quality objectives, management of the soil resource in 

both the uplands and riparian areas is imperative. The emphasis in all alternatives to meet the Wyoming 

Standards for Rangeland Health would be on management actions at the watershed level, further 

benefiting the soil resource. The objective common to all alternatives is to control runoff from developed 

sites and maintain erosion rates at natural levels, which would further protect the soil resource. 

Pinedale RMP 4-163 
Chapter 4—Soils Final EIS 

Wildland fires would affect soil resources by exposing soils to water and wind erosion. Erosion rates 

could increase to 4.76 tons per acre per year in the short term. In certain vegetative communities, hot fires 

can create hydrophobic soil conditions (i.e., resistance to water infiltration), whereby runoff and erosion 

are increased. Provided that vegetative recovery is successful, the long-term effect of a fire and change in 

vegetation could reduce long-term erosion and benefit soil resources. 

Fire suppression activities would have the potential to impact the soil resource. Fire lines constructed 

during suppression efforts could channelize surface runoff, causing gully erosion. When heavy equipment 

is used to construct fire lines, a wider area is cleared of vegetation, with the root masses often being 

removed as well. Fire suppression impacts could be mitigated if fire crews are used to construct erosion 

control structures such as water bars. Impacts could be further reduced through the implementation of 

BLM’s Burned Area Stabilization protocols. Wildland fire would often stimulate the herbaceous 

component of the plant community, increasing cover in the long term with a subsequent reduction in the 

natural rate of erosion. 

As with wildland fire, prescribed fire would have the potential to impact soil resources by removing 

stabilizing vegetation and exposing soils to accelerated wind and water erosion. Generally, these fires do 

not burn as hot and greater surface cover remains. Short-term erosion rates following prescribed fire are 

estimated to be 1.99 tons per acre per year. Prescribed fire usually stimulates the herbaceous component 

of the plant community, increasing cover in the long term with a subsequent reduction in the natural rate 

of erosion. 

4.11.4 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 1. 

The emphasis of this alternative to resolve conflicts between cultural resource and other uses and provide 

for appropriate levels of protection would indirectly impact the soil resource by restricting or limiting 

development. The goal to design cultural resource management actions that maintain the value of cultural 

resources and provide for scientific and educational uses of cultural resources could result in minimal 

surface disturbance from subsurface investigations. 

This alternative would provide for approximately 4,000 acres of forest and woodlands to undergo various 

treatments such as thinning, hazardous fuels reduction, and commercial harvest activities. Given the 

limited size and extent of forest and woodland treatments, overall impacts on the soil resource would be 

minimal. Following harvest and treatment activities, groundcover would still be high since the understory 

would be largely undisturbed and limbs and other debris would cover much of the soil surface. Erosion 

rates following treatments or harvest activities would be only 0.02 ton per acre per year, resulting in 

approximately 80 tons of soil erosion. Erosion rates could be higher along skid trails and landings (0.22 

ton per acre per year), and there could be some soil compaction associated with these facilities. 

Under the current management, 6,400 acres would be eligible for disposal, with an additional 14,500 

acres identified as suitable for consideration for disposal only by exchange. This alternative could 

potentially result in 20,900 acres being transferred out of federal ownership. Lands transferred out of 

federal ownership have the potential to impact the soil resource through uncontrolled surface-disturbing 

activities. 

4-164 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

Surface-disturbing activities associated with minerals activities such as the construction of well pads, 

roads, and pipelines expose soils to the erosive forces of water and wind both in the short term and long 

term. With the projected initial disturbance of 21,599 acres for well pad development, short-term erosion 

rates would be 132,402 tons per year during the time it takes for the disturbed areas to become vegetated 

and stabilized. Once these sites become stabilized, erosion rates would drop to 64,212 tons per year. With 

the projection of 2,181 miles of new roads, short-term erosion would be 7,605 tons per year. Once the 

roads become stabilized, long-term erosion rates would be 2,044 tons per year. With the projection of 

11,063 acres disturbed for pipeline construction, short-term erosion would be 67,816 tons per year. Once 

pipelines become stabilized, long-term erosion would be 841 tons per year. 

Management actions would place an emphasis on three recreation management areas: Scab Creek, Upper 

Green River, and Boulder Lake, in addition to fishing and floating opportunities along the Green and New 

Fork Rivers. Management actions directed toward these recreational areas would indirectly impact the 

soil resource in two ways. First, large-scale surface-disturbing activities would not be allowed. Second, 

areas impacted from heavy-use areas, such as erosion along trails and access points, would be identified 

and mitigated or corrected. 

Management actions would emphasize the reduction of soil erosion and sediment and salinity to the 

Green River Basin water system, relying on a case-by-case approach to management practices to reduce 

impacts on soils. This approach would continue to reduce impacts on the soil resource. By not mandating 

that impacts of erosion from past surface-disturbing activities be mitigated, these disturbed areas could 

continue to erode with subsequent onsite and offsite impacts. 

Remaining open to unrestricted OHV use would be 247,250 acres. OHV use could have a significant 

impact on the soil resource. Conservative erosion estimates using WEPP predict that soil erosion could 

increase 10 times above the natural rate. In the unlikely event that the entire 247,250 acres were to be 

used as an OHV Open Area, erosion rates would average 610,708 tons per year. In addition to the 

predicted erosion impacts, there would be soil compaction along high-traffic routes and the potential for 

channelization of overland water flow with the resultant gully formation. 

There would be no mandate to conduct vegetation treatments to meet DPC goals. Impacts on the soil 

resource such as improved vegetative cover would be limited to improvements resulting from noxious 

weed control and habitat protection for Special Status Species. 

The wildlife management actions under Alternative 1 were developed before the current level of oil and 

gas activity. Wildlife management actions that benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat would have an indirect 

impact on the soil resource resulting from reduced or restricted surface-disturbing activities. Since the 

wildlife management actions under this alternative did not take into account the current pressures on 

wildlife and their habitats, this alternative would have the potential to impact the soil resource more 

through surface-disturbing activities. 

One ACEC (Beaver Creek) and two SRMAs (Upper Green River and Boulder Lake), totaling 14,540 

acres, would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This would have an indirect impact on the soil resource 

because these areas would not be subject to large-scale surface-disturbing activities. 

4.11.5 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

The objective of this alternative, to “protect the NRHP-eligible cultural sites and national historic trails,” 

would indirectly protect the soil resource though surface occupancy prohibitions and restrictions on 

surface-disturbing activities in the vicinity of significant cultural sites, such as historic trails, communal 

Pinedale RMP 4-165 
Chapter 4—Soils Final EIS 

big game kill sites, rock shelters, and Native American burial sites and TCPs. The limited number of 

management actions under this alternative could reduce the effectiveness of this alternative in protecting 

the soil resource. 

This alternative would allow approximately 11,000 acres of forest and woodlands to undergo various 

treatments such as thinning, fuel reduction, or commercial harvest activities. Erosion rates following 

treatments or harvest activities would be 0.02 ton per acre per year, resulting in approximately 220 tons of 

soil erosion. 

The emphasis placed on grazing under this alternative would cause impacts on the soil resource. A 

minimal decrease in vegetative cover from livestock grazing would result in a slight increase of runoff 

and erosion. If vegetation cover were reduced by 10%, erosion rates predicted by WEPP indicate that 

erosion would increase by only 0.01 ton per acre per year. In those areas where livestock congregate, 

particularly during wet soil conditions, there could be some additional soil compaction and runoff. 

With the projected initial disturbance of 23,872 acres for well pad development, short-term erosion rates 

would be 146,335 tons per year during the time it takes for the disturbed areas to become vegetated and 

stabilized. Once these sites become stabilized, erosion rates would drop to 68,993 tons per year. With the 

projection of 2,370 miles of new roads, short-term erosion would be 8,624 tons per year. Long-term 

erosion rates from roads would be 2,221 tons per year. With the projection of 11,611 acres disturbed for 

pipeline construction, short-term erosion would be 71,175 tons per year. Once pipelines are revegetated, 

long-term erosion would be 882 tons per year. 

This alternative would do the least to promote recreational opportunities in the planning area. The 

management objective to “manage recreational use to limit resource damage” would impact the soil 

resource when areas impacted from heavy use are identified, such as erosion along trails and access 

points, and responded to in such a manner as to mitigate or eliminate the damage. Only three SRMAs 

would be designated under this alternative, each of which would be open to limited oil and gas activity. 

The indirect impacts on the soil resource are common under Alternatives 3 and 4, whereby surfacedisturbing activities would not occur in SRMAs and would not be realized under this alternative. 

Under this alternative, up to 5,000 acres could be transferred out of federal ownership, with the resultant 

uncertainty of future land uses and impacts on the soil resource. DLEs would be allowed under this 

alternative; properly managed agricultural lands could benefit the soil resource by increasing vegetative 

groundcover, particularly for hay crops, and building soil fertility and soil structure. However, poor 

agricultural practices could lead to increased erosion, with onsite and offsite impacts. By allowing water 

disposal pits, there would be increased surface disturbance and the associated erosional impacts on soils. 

In addition, water disposal pits would increase the potential for catastrophic events, whereby large 

volumes of soils could be eroded from the landscape. 

The objective to “mitigate impacts of erosion from past surface-disturbing activities” would have a direct 

impact on the soil resource, lowering erosion rates by as much as 10 times below current rates. In 

addition, the management objective to “ensure that all newly disturbed areas are successfully reclaimed” 

would directly impact the soil resource. 

The designation of 20,640 acres for four OHV Open Areas would have direct impacts on the soil 

resource. Such a designation would lead to increased use by recreational riders. As a result, soil erosion 

rates would increase significantly, resulting in an average soil loss of 25,836 tons per year. These 

calculations probably underestimate the potential for erosion, because they do not include gully formation 

along trails and roads. The objective to mitigate erosion impacts along transportation corridors would 

result in an immediate benefit to the soil resource. 

4-166 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

Impacts on the soil resource, such as improved vegetative cover, would be limited to improvements 

resulting from noxious weed control and habitat protection for Special Status Species. 

The reduced emphasis placed on wildlife management under this alternative would also reduce the 

indirect impacts on the soil resource that normally result from wildlife management actions. Only to the 

extent that the objective to “maintain or enhance fish and wildlife habitat to the extent possible” would 

reduce surface-disturbing activities would there be any indirect impact on the soil resource. 

The Trapper’s Point ACEC would be the only SD/MA proposed under this alternative. This management 

action would represent an indirect impact on the soil resource. Under this alternative, there would be no 

acres withdrawn from mineral entry, therefore increasing the potential extent of surface disturbance with 

the subsequent erosional impacts. 

4.11.6 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

The management actions under this alternative would emphasize protection of cultural resources. Many 

areas would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing; 84,380 acres around the Lander Trail would be 

designated as a Class II VRM area; and land acquisitions and exchanges that benefit cultural resources 

would be pursued. These more protective actions would indirectly benefit the soil resource by limiting 

surface-disturbing activities over a much broader area than any of the other alternatives. 

This alternative would provide for approximately 18,000 acres of forest and woodlands to undergo 

various treatments such as thinning, hazardous fuels reduction, and commercial harvest activities. Erosion 

rates following treatments or harvest activities would be 0.02 ton per acre per year, resulting in 

approximately 360 tons of soil erosion. Erosion rates could be higher along skid trails and landings (0.22 

ton per acre per year), and there could be some soil compaction associated with these facilities. Long-term 

erosion rates would depend on the rates of vegetative and soil recovery. 

By limiting the disposal of public lands to 790 acres, this alternative would greatly reduce the likelihood 

that changes in land ownership could result in uncontrolled surface-disturbing actions, with the resultant 

onsite and offsite impacts on the soil resource. By not allowing DLE, this alternative would not realize the 

potential for reducing erosion and improving soil fertility and structure through good agricultural 

practices; nor would the potential for increased soil erosion through poor agricultural practices be 

realized. 

The reduction of AUMs under this alternative could reduce the impacts on the soil resource. There could 

be a minimal increase in vegetative cover because of the AUM reduction, resulting in a slight reduction in 

runoff and erosion. If vegetation cover were to increase by 10%, erosion rates predicted by WEPP 

indicate that erosion would decrease by only 0.01 ton per acre per year. 

With the projected initial disturbance of 15,923 acres for well pad development, short-term erosion rates 

would be 97,608 tons per year during the time it takes for disturbed areas to become vegetated and 

stabilized. Once these sites become stabilized, erosion rates would drop to 49,193 tons per year. With the 

projection of 1,578 miles of new roads, short-term erosion would be 5,502 tons per year. Once they 

become stabilized, long-term erosion rates from roads would be 1,479 tons per year. With the projection 

of 7,719 acres disturbed for pipeline construction, short-term erosion would be 47,317 tons per year. Once 

pipelines become stabilized, long-term erosion would be 587 tons per year. 

The emphasis placed on recreation management would indirectly impact the soil resource. The emphasis 

placed on completing RAMPs could reduce impacts on the soil resource though the implementation of 

Pinedale RMP 4-167 
Chapter 4—Soils Final EIS 

better recreation management. The management objective to “maintain and develop adequate recreational 

sites to meet public demand” could result in localized impacts on the soil resource, such as soil 

compaction along trails and access points; however, areas experiencing accelerated erosion could be 

readily identified and responded to. The three SRMAs identified under this alternative would not allow oil 

and gas activities resulting in indirect impact on the soil resource, because large-scale surface-disturbing 

activities would not occur. 

This alternative would require that “natural” erosion rates be achieved. This action would result in little 

difference in reclamation success and would do little to reduce impacts on soils. By mandating that 

surface disturbance be prohibited on slopes greater than 8%, erosion rates on disturbed areas could be 

reduced by as much as 80%, in addition to the reduction of surface disturbance that would take place. 

The objective to mitigate erosion impacts along transportation corridors would directly benefit the soil 

resource by reducing or eliminating runoff and erosion impacts along these corridors. By prohibiting 

OHV Open Areas, this alternative would benefit the soil resource in those areas currently being used by 

OHVs in an unrestricted manner. In the long term, these areas would revegetate and erosion rates would 

approach more natural levels. 

Under this alternative, no areas would be designated as OHV Open Areas. Assuming that this would be 

strictly adhered to by the public, there would be no new impacts on the soil resource from expansion of 

OHV disturbance. 

Some 200,000 acres would be proposed for treatment using prescribed fire, wildland fire, biological 

treatments, or a combination thereof. Such treatments would have the potential for short-term erosion 

impacts with erosion increasing to 1.99 tons per acre per year and an annual soil loss of 26,533 tons. 

Since vegetation treatments usually increase herbaceous cover, in the long term, erosion rates could be 

reduced below the predicted background erosion rate of 0.04 ton per acre per year. 

Fire management actions under this alternative would have the potential to reduce suppression-related 

impacts on the soil resource, primarily through the management action to “conduct fire suppression 

activities in areas of known sensitive species habitat, fragile or erosive soils” in such a way as to avoid 

damage to these resources and would indirectly impact the soil resource by identifying such areas in 

advance and thus reduce or avoid impacts on the soil resource. 

These wildlife and oil and gas management areas and subsequent management actions would limit the 

extent of oil and gas activity in the planning area, causing an indirect impact on the soil resource, whereby 

fewer acres would be disturbed through oil and gas exploration and development. 

Under this alternative, 17 SD/MAs would be designated, covering 648,944 acres. This could significantly 

reduce the acres of surface disturbance primarily from oil and gas activity, which would have an indirect 

impact on the soil resource because soil erosion would be reduced. 

4.11.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 4. 

The impacts from livestock grazing would be similar to those under Alternative 1. 

The impacts from cultural resources, lands and realty, OHV, and wildland fire management would be the 

same as under Alternative 3. 

4-168 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

This alternative would provide for approximately 18,000 acres of forest and woodlands to undergo 

various treatments such as thinning, hazardous fuels reduction, and commercial harvest activities. Erosion 

rates following treatments or harvest activities would be 0.02 ton per acre per year, resulting in 

approximately 360 tons of soil erosion. Erosion rates could be higher along skid trails and landings (0.22 

ton per acre per year), and there could be some soil compaction associated with these facilities. 

With the projected initial disturbance of 21,853 acres for well pad development, short-term erosion rates 

would be 133,959 tons per year during the time it takes for the disturbed areas to become vegetated and 

stabilized. Once these sites become stabilized, erosion rates would drop to 63,997 tons per year. With the 

projection of 2,168 miles of new roads, short-term erosion would be 7,560 tons per year. Once the roads 

become stabilized, long-term erosion rates from roads would be 2,031 tons per year. With the projection 

of 10,027 acres disturbed for pipeline construction, short-term erosion would be 61,466 tons per year. 

Once pipelines become stabilized, estimated long-term erosion would be 762 tons per year. 

The emphasis placed on recreation management would indirectly impact the soil resource. The emphasis 

placed on completing RAMPs could reduce impacts on the soil resource though the implementation of 

better recreational goals and objectives. The management objective to “maintain and develop adequate 

recreational sites to meet public demand” could result in localized impacts on the soil resource, such as 

soil compaction along trails and access points; however, areas experiencing accelerated erosion could be 

readily identified and responded to. Five SRMAs are identified under this alternative. All are open to oil 

and gas leasing but with NSO stipulations; the emphasis on SRMAs would benefit the soil resource 

because large-scale surface-disturbing activities would largely be eliminated. 

The soil management actions under this alternative are the same as those under Alternatives 2 and 3—to 

“mitigate impacts of erosion from past surface-disturbing activities” and to “ensure that all newly 

disturbed areas are successfully reclaimed.” This alternative would require that natural erosion rates be 

achieved to the extent possible. This more realistic goal would result in similar long-term erosion rates as 

under the other alternatives. The 80% reduction in erosion from the 8% slope restriction under Alternative 

3, along with the reduced acreage of surface disturbance, would not be realized under this alternative. 

By prohibiting OHV Open areas, this alternative would benefit the soil resource in those areas currently 

being used by OHVs in an unrestricted manner. In the long term, these areas would revegetate and 

erosion rates would approach more natural levels. 

The objective to mitigate erosion impacts along transportation corridors would be of immediate benefit 

the soil resource. Some 100,000 acres would be proposed for treatment using prescribed fire, wildland 

fire, biological treatments, or a combination thereof. Such treatments would have the potential for shortterm erosion impacts, with erosion increasing to 1.99 tons per acre per year and an annual soil loss of 

13,267 tons per year. Since vegetation treatments usually increase herbaceous cover, in the long term, 

erosion rates could be reduced below the predicted background erosion rate of 0.04 ton per acre per year. 

The wildlife management actions in the Intensively Developed Fields, Traditional Leasing Areas, and 

Unavailable Areas would limit the extent of oil and gas activity in the planning area, though not to the 

same extent as under Alternative 3. Oil and gas activities would continue under Alternative 4 but at a 

more controlled pace. There still would be an indirect impact on the soil resource, whereby fewer acres 

would be disturbed through oil and gas exploration and development. 

The emphasis on SRMAs and an ERMA would lead to a reduction in the acres of surface disturbance, 

with a subsequent reduction in soil erosion, thus representing an indirect impact on the soil resource. 

Pinedale RMP 4-169 
Chapter 4—Transportation Final EIS 

4.12 TRANSPORTATION, ACCESS, AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

4.12.1 Transportation and Access 

This section describes potential impacts on transportation and access from management actions for other 

resource programs. Transportation and access management includes management of ROWs for vehicular 

traffic and utility systems and access needs into isolated public land parcels. Existing conditions 

concerning transportation and access are described in Chapter 3 (Section 3.12). 

The transportation and access program is a support program rather than an environmental component. The 

program responds to requests for authorization from other programs or outside entities. The following 

discussion of the effects on transportation and access focuses on the constraints and opportunities for 

ROW authorizations (e.g., pipelines and roads). Specifically, the analysis will determine whether the 

implementation of management actions for other resource programs influences or modifies the location, 

size, or design of a given transportation and access proposal or, in some cases, precludes the proposal 

from being approved. Such impacts would primarily occur from the implementation of management 

actions designed to protect natural resources and limit impacts on those resources from surface-disturbing 

activities. Therefore, the type and degree of limitations and restrictions placed on transportation and 

access proposals depends on the location of sensitive or high-value resources and the potential for 

environmental impacts on those resources. 

Assumptions 

The analysis was based on the following assumptions: 

• ROW applications for energy-related transportation facilities (e.g., roads, pipelines) are 

anticipated to increase. 

• Interest in community expansion and transportation needs is anticipated to increase during the 

planning period. 

• The effects of designation and development of transportation and utility ROW corridors would be 

mitigated on a case-by-case basis. 

Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources within the 

planning area, review of existing literature, and information provided by other agencies. Spatial analysis 

was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 computer software. Effects are quantified where 

possible. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes 

described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate. 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

No impacts on the transportation and access program are anticipated as a result of implementing 

management actions for the following resources and resource uses: forest management, fire and fuels 

management, and livestock grazing. 

Air quality management would affect how the transportation authorizations are stipulated to alleviate air 

quality impacts. As an example, stipulations may be placed on pipeline or road ROWs calling for dust 

4-170 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Transportation 

suppressants. The requirement to use dust suppressants may increase the construction costs. Formal 

consultation would be required for any project-related activity (dust suppression) that would cause a 

depletion of the Colorado River system. 

Implementing protective measures for cultural and paleontological resources could require avoidance and 

other mitigation measures for transportation systems proposed near these resources. These measures 

could result in the relocation or redesign of the proposed transportation system. Because known cultural 

and paleontological resources occur throughout the planning area, and additional resources will likely be 

discovered in the future, impacts could be substantial and occur to varying degrees throughout the 

planning area. 

Land tenure adjustments could serve to benefit the overall management of the transportation and access 

program. These actions would help to facilitate the location of transportation systems by providing for a 

more contiguous public land base and encouraging such developments near communities. 

The minerals program would have a very large impact on the transportation and access program. Impacts 

would include roads required and transportation systems for natural gas and other produced liquids. In 

addition, areas that are closed to mineral leasing, have an NSO stipulation, or are otherwise identified as 

unsuitable for surface disturbance or occupancy would be managed as avoidance or exclusion areas for 

transportation. Minerals management actions, because they are so numerous in specific parts of the 

planning area, would potentially affect the location of subsequent transportation systems. Increased 

minerals actions would contribute to an increase in traffic, with a resultant increase in garbage and litter. 

Recreation-related demands on public lands could increase the need for access. Overall, there would be 

minimal impacts on transportation and access from recreation management. 

Implementing management actions for vegetation and soils could place land use restriction on some areas. 

Achieving high species diversity and the Standards for Rangeland Health (USDI, BLM 1997) for 

vegetation and preventing or minimizing soil erosion could result in the relocation or redesign of 

transportation systems. These potential impacts would be small scale and localized in sensitive vegetation 

and soils areas. 

Managing the planning area to meet VRM objectives could affect the location and route of proposed 

transportation systems. Additional effort would be required to design projects to meet the objectives of 

the designated VRM class in an area in which a transportation system is proposed. Because transportation 

systems would generally be compatible with Class IV objectives, this classification would allow for 

increased opportunities for such authorizations. This is also true for VRM Class III objectives; however, 

some additional project planning could be necessary within VRM Class III areas to ensure that the 

landscape is partially retained. Any transportation systems proposed in VRM Class II would be subject to 

intensive mitigation and, in some cases, could be precluded. 

Management of fish and wildlife habitat and Special Status Species would impact uses administered by 

the transportation and access program through the implementation of mitigation measures designed to 

protect species and wildlife habitat. Implementing species-specific conservation measures for BLM 

sensitive plant and animal species and prohibiting actions that adversely affect T&E species could result 

in the relocation of proposed transportation systems to avoid these habitat areas. 

Potential impacts from all SD/MAs, whether existing or proposed, would usually be minimal and vary by 

management prescriptions associated with each designated SD/MA. Intensive management of SD/MAs 

would potentially affect the transportation and access program by altering locations. WSAs cause the 

Pinedale RMP 4-171 
Chapter 4—Transportation Final EIS 

greatest restriction on transportation management actions, whereas the other SD/MAs place fewer 

restrictions on such actions. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 1. 

Access across private lands would be pursued through a variety of methods as needed. Access closure, 

abandonment, and acquisition would be considered through activity planning and environmental analysis. 

This would increase the transportation and access workload in completing the necessary work for the 

actions and case files. 

Impacts would result from the oil and gas RFD of 7,192 wells. This would impact transportation and 

access management by the demand for authorizations for oil and gas facilities, including pipelines and 

roads. 

VRM classifications would affect the location of new transportation systems. Projects would be designed 

to meet the objectives of the established VRM class for the project area. Most transportation systems 

would be compatible with VRM Classes III (187,070 acres) and IV (641,140 acres). In VRM Class I 

(21,290 acres) and Class II (73,430 acres) areas, transportation actions would be limited and require 

mitigation to ensure that the project or surface disturbance did not attract the attention of the casual 

observer (Map 2-14). 

Mitigation measures to protect wildlife resources, T&E species, and critical habitats would impact the 

transportation and access program. Seasonal closures would result in short-term impacts on transportation 

actions in sensitive areas such as the big game crucial winter range (501,620 acres) and greater sagegrouse lek buffer areas (392,880 acres). Year-round restrictions, including no surface-disturbing activities 

in areas such as sensitive aquatic and critical habitats, would restrict the location of transportation actions 

over the long term. Sensitive wildlife habitats such as prairie dog towns would be avoided to the extent 

possible, thereby limiting the placement of transportation systems and access. However, avoidance and 

exclusion areas would be considered on a case-by-case basis based on their level of sensitivity. 

ACECs would be managed as transportation avoidance or exclusion areas. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 2. 

Cultural resource management would prohibit transportation and access actions on communal big game 

kill sites, Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, and Native American burial locales and TCPs. 

Transportation actions would be prohibited or require special mitigation measures within one-quarter mile 

or the visual horizon (whichever is nearer) of the Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails and also within onequarter mile of contributing segments of these trails. This could result in the rerouting of transportation 

systems, thereby adding costs to proponents. Under Alternative 1, these restrictions would not occur, so 

this alternative would be more restrictive and have more impact on the transportation and access program. 

Under this alternative, land tenure adjustments would be considered on a case-by-case basis, according to 

the criteria in Appendix 13. This action would increase the ability to exchange land, thereby increasing 

the potential for community and economic expansion. This might also increase the potential for sale or 

4-172 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Transportation 

exchange of isolated tracts of land, thereby facilitating management of the transportation and access 

program. 

Impacts resulting from minerals management would be more extensive and would impact a larger portion 

of the planning area than under Alternative 1 because of fewer restrictions on use and increased 

development opportunities (RFD of 7,804 wells). This alternative would provide the most opportunity for 

mineral development and production, by allowing more open areas, which would increase transportation 

and access needs. This would impact the transportation and access program by increasing the demand. 

Impacts resulting from the management of SD/MAs would be the same as those under Alternative 1, 

except that surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited in the Trapper’s Point ACEC. All new 

transportation systems would need to be routed around the ACEC. 

Impacts from VRM would be similar to those under Alternative 1, except that approximately 13,720 more 

acres would be designated as VRM Class II, which would increase the level of restrictions designed to 

protect visual resources and subsequently decrease opportunities for transportation authorizations. 

Impacts resulting from wildlife and fisheries management would be more restrictive to the transportation 

program. For greater sage-grouse, big game, sensitive species, and raptors in Intensively Developed 

Fields, Traditional Leasing Areas, and Unavailable Areas, the restrictions placed on development would 

result in more impacts and restrictions to transportation and access. The placement of transportation 

systems and the construction windows could be affected by seasonal restrictions for NSO areas. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 3. 

Cultural resource management, as under Alternative 2, would prohibit transportation and access actions 

on communal big game kill sites, Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, and Native American burial 

locales and TCPs. Transportation and access actions would be prohibited or would require special 

mitigation measures within 1 mile or the visual horizon (whichever is nearer) of the Lander and Sublette 

Cutoff Trails and also within 1 mile of contributing segments of these trails. This is an additional threequarter mile and could result in the rerouting of transportation systems at additional costs to proponents. 

Under Alternative 1, these restrictions would not occur, and under Alternative 2 the restriction would be 

for one-quarter mile; thus, Alternative 3 would be more restrictive and have more impact on the 

transportation and access program. 

Impacts from minerals management would be less extensive and would impact a smaller portion of the 

planning area than under Alternative 1, because of increased restrictions on use and decreased 

development opportunities. This alternative would provide the lowest opportunity for mineral 

development and production (RFD of 5,209 wells), thereby decreasing land use. This decrease would 

impact transportation and access management by lowering the demand for authorizations. 

The increase of 371,970 acres for VRM Class II would increase the level of restrictions designed to 

protect visual resources and subsequently would decrease opportunities for transportation and access 

authorizations. 

Impacts resulting from wildlife and fisheries management would be greater than under Alternative 1 

because of an increased emphasis on habitat enhancement and protection and additional restrictions on 

surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities. For greater sage-grouse, big game, sensitive species, 

Pinedale RMP 4-173 
Chapter 4—Transportation Final EIS 

and raptors in Intensively Developed Fields, Traditional Leasing Areas, and Unavailable Areas, the 

restrictions placed on development would result in more impacts and restrictions to transportation and 

access. The placement of transportation systems and the construction windows for building pipelines, 

roads, and so forth would be affected by NSO areas and seasonal restrictions. This would either decrease 

opportunities for authorizations or increase the stipulations placed on the authorizations, which could 

increase cost to the proponents. 

SD/MAs under this alternative would restrict opportunities for development and associated transportation 

systems. There would be eight ACECs under this alternative. The emphasis of the ACECs would be to 

protect natural resources, which would place more restrictions on transportation. The Rock Creek ACEC 

would be a transportation exclusion area. In the Beaver Creek ACEC, all new roads and transportation 

would be required to follow existing ROW alignments. Trapper’s Point and New Fork Potholes ACECs 

would be closed to all surface-disturbing activities except those activities that benefit natural resources. 

These areas would also be a transportation system exclusion area for all types of commercial activity. The 

Upper Green River ACEC would require the closure of the same amount of road that is built, with no net 

gain in miles of road. The White-tailed Prairie Dogs ACEC would have intensive management for 

surface-disturbing activities, more mitigation, and stipulations on all transportation systems. The Ross 

Butte ACEC would require new transportation systems to follow existing disturbance. The CCC Ponds 

ACEC would require that proposed projects be designed to maintain the integrity of big game migration 

routes. The East Fork River WSR Unit would be an exclusion area for transportation systems. The Green 

River WSR Unit would be an avoidance area for transportation systems. In other words, a transportation 

system could go through this ACEC but only with intensive management in the form of mitigation and 

stipulations placed on the authorization. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 4. 

Cultural resource management would prohibit transportation and access actions on communal big game 

kill sites, Oregon Trail inscription sites, rock shelters, and Native American burial locales and TCPs, as it 

does under Alternatives 2 and 3. Transportation actions would be prohibited or require special mitigation 

measures within one-quarter mile or the visual horizon (whichever is nearer) of the Lander and Sublette 

Cutoff Trails and also within one-quarter mile of contributing segments of these trails, except for linear 

crossings. This could result in the rerouting of transportation systems and additional costs to proponents. 

Under Alternative 1, the restriction would not occur; under Alternative 2 the restriction would be for onequarter mile; and under Alternative 3, the restriction would be for 3 miles. This alternative would be 

between Alternatives 2 and 3 for being restrictive and impacting on the transportation and access 

program. 

Impacts from minerals management would be less extensive and would involve a smaller portion of the 

planning area than under Alternative 1 because of increased restrictions on use and decreased 

development opportunities. This alternative would provide slightly fewer opportunities for mineral 

development and production (RFD of 7,136 wells), thereby decreasing transportation needs. This 

decrease would impact lands and realty management by lowering the demand for transportation 

authorizations. 

Impacts from VRM actions would be similar to those under Alternative 1, except that 166,090 more acres 

would be designated as VRM Class II, which would increase the level of restrictions designed to protect 

visual resources and subsequently decrease opportunities for transportation and access authorizations. 

4-174 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Transportation 

Impacts resulting from wildlife and fisheries management could be greater than under Alternative 1 

because of an increased emphasis on habitat enhancement and protection and additional restrictions on 

surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities. For greater sage-grouse, big game, sensitive species, 

and raptors in Intensively Developed Fields, Traditional Leasing Areas, and Unavailable Areas, the 

restrictions placed on development would result in more impacts and restrictions to transportation and 

access. The placement of transportation systems and the construction windows for building pipelines, 

roads, and so forth could be affected by areas unavailable for leasing, NSO areas, and seasonal 

restrictions. This would either decrease opportunities for transportation and access authorizations or 

increase the stipulations placed on such authorizations, which could increase cost to the proponents. 

SD/MAs under Alternative 4 would restrict opportunities for development and associated transportation 

systems. There would be an additional nine ACECs under this alternative. The emphasis of the ACECs is 

to protect natural resources, which would put more restrictions on transportation systems. The Rock 

Creek ACEC would be a transportation exclusion area. In the Beaver Creek ACEC, all new roads and 

transportation systems would be required to follow existing ROW alignments. The Trapper’s Point and 

New Fork Potholes ACECs would be closed to all surface-disturbing activities except those that benefit 

the natural resources, which would make those ACECs transportation exclusion areas for all types of 

commercial activity. The Ross Butte ACEC would require new transportation systems to follow existing 

disturbance. The East Fork River WSR Unit would be an exclusion area for transportation. The Green 

River WSR Unit would be an avoidance area for transportation. In other words, a transportation system 

could go through this ACEC but only with intensive management in the form of mitigation and 

stipulations placed on the authorization. 

4.12.2 Off-Highway Vehicle Management 

This section describes impacts related to OHV management on public lands only. It does not apply to 

roads or transportation systems that are not under BLM jurisdiction, such as county roads owned and 

maintained by Sublette County. 

Assumptions 

The analysis was based on the following assumptions: 

• Existing ROWs granted to other parties for access across the public lands are not affected by this 

RMP. 

• OHV designations established by this RMP would not change the terms and conditions of use for 

an existing ROW. 

• Lands would be open to motor vehicle access for emergency purposes such as search and rescue 

and fire fighting, regardless of the OHV designation. 

Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of the area and its 

resources. Impacts are described using the best professional knowledge of the staff. Quantitative data are 

used where available. Impacts are often described using ranges of potential impact or in qualitative terms. 

Pinedale RMP 4-175 
Chapter 4—Transportation Final EIS 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Potential impacts are complex in nature. The impacts that a given action produces depend on what is 

affected. For example, closing a given area to motor vehicles may be of great benefit to wildlife, to people 

who do not use motor vehicles to view or hunt wildlife, and to the visual character of the area. On the 

other hand, closing an area to motor vehicles excludes certain classes of people as well as certain kinds of 

activities. 

Impacts from motor vehicle use typically occur when roads are constructed or when they are user-created 

by the passage of motor vehicles and by the activities that are facilitated by motor vehicle use. When 

roads are created, there is a corresponding loss of vegetation and removal or erosion of soil. Excessive or 

inappropriate road establishment can damage or degrade wildlife habitat, damage or destroy cultural 

resources, change the visual character of the landscape, change or degrade the kind of recreational 

experience provided by a given area, or even displace values and activities entirely. For example, 

excessive motor vehicle activity in crucial wildlife habitat can disturb wildlife and degrade the habitat to 

the point that it is abandoned. 

Lands in the “closed to all motor vehicle use” category would receive no impacts from motor vehicle use. 

Motorized activities would be excluded from such areas, making them unavailable to people who choose 

to access the public lands only by motor vehicle or those who are unable to travel by means other than 

motor vehicles. 

Wildlife would benefit from OHV closures because elimination of motor vehicles would decrease the 

amount of disturbance they would be subject to, particularly at critical times of the year (e.g., elk calving). 

Hunters would have to travel by foot or horseback. This would either enhance the hunting experience or 

detract from it, depending on the desires and attitudes of the affected hunters. Under a closed designation, 

the visual quality of the land would be enhanced because it would retain a more natural appearance. 

Lands in the “limited” categories would be subject to a variety of impacts, depending on the terms and 

conditions of the designation. For “limited to existing roads and trails,” motor vehicle access would be 

available on the entire existing road and trail network, plus any new roads authorized. This category 

normally provides excellent access to the public lands. However, it often encourages the proliferation of 

additional roads, because it is so difficult to determine what, exactly, are “existing roads and trails.” 

For “limited to designated roads and trails,” lands would be subject to a higher degree of protection than 

under the “existing” category. Motor vehicle use would be limited to a specific road and trail network 

established through collaboration with users, other agencies, and the general public. Unauthorized road 

proliferation would be curtailed, thus extending protection to wildlife habitat, livestock grazing uses, and 

visual resources. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

Under this alternative, about 26% of the public lands in the planning area would be open to all motor 

vehicle use (Map 2-13). They would be subject to uncontrolled OHV use, road proliferation, associated 

damage to vegetation and soils, and degradation of the visual appearance of the landscape. This would 

affect the southeastern quarter of the planning area, the northern portion of the Mesa, and a small parcel 

just east of Big Piney. Although this might be of benefit to OHV enthusiasts, it would generally be 

detrimental to most other values and uses of the public lands except mineral development. 

Lands in the “open” category would be subject to OHV use any time and anywhere. This has a high 

potential to significantly increase the number of user-created roads and trails above the number 

4-176 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Transportation 

appropriate for a given mix of resource uses. There would also be a high potential for damage to soils and 

vegetation. An excessive number of roads with accompanying damage to soils and vegetation would 

adversely affect wildlife habitat, degrade the productivity of the land for livestock grazing, and have an 

adverse visual impact. Open lands would be subject to abusive motor vehicle use. 

With the exception of the WSAs, the remainder of the planning area would be limited to existing roads 

and trails. This would allow unauthorized road proliferation and associated impacts on soils, vegetation, 

and the visual quality of the landscape. This slow process would have minimal short-term effects, but in 

the long term, areas of interest to hunters and OHV enthusiasts could be changed to the point that roads 

and their visual appearance would be a dominant feature. 

The impact from access management would be minimal, both in the short term and long term. Access 

acquisition would occur infrequently because of a limited budget and lack of willing sellers. Easements 

would only be acquired when there is agreement between the buyer (BLM) and the seller. Generally, the 

public benefits from increased or improved legal access to the public lands. Private landowners who grant 

easements to the public lands across their property would benefit by being paid for doing so. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

Under this alternative the vast majority of the planning area would be limited to existing roads and trails, 

with less than 1% of the public lands open, approximately 2% limited to designated roads and trails, and 

less than 1% closed to OHV use (Map 2-21). This would extend OHV management to the majority of the 

planning area but would use the least effective form of management to do so. 

Lands in the “open” category would be subject to OHV use any time and anywhere. This has a high 

potential to significantly increase the number of user-created roads and trails above the number 

appropriate for a given mix of resource uses. There would also be a high potential for damage to soils and 

vegetation. An excessive number of roads with accompanying damage to soils and vegetation would 

adversely affect wildlife habitat, degrade the productivity of the land for livestock grazing, and have an 

adverse visual impact. Open lands would be subject to abusive motor vehicle use. 

While somewhat effective, the “limited to existing roads and trails” designation is not as effective as 

“limited to designated roads and trails.” Under the “existing” category, it is difficult for users (and 

managers) to determine the authorized existing road network. Accordingly, road proliferation would 

continue to occur where a specific identified network of roads and trails has not been identified. The 

impacts would include unauthorized roads and trails, damage to vegetation and soils, decreased visual 

quality of the landscape, potential degradation of wildlife habitat, damage to riparian areas, and at the 

extreme, decreased quality of activities such as recreation. These impacts are usually minimal in the short 

term but could become considerable in the long term. 

For the areas where OHV travel would be limited to designated roads and trails, management of motor 

vehicle access would be effective. Impacts would include preventing the proliferation of roads and trails 

and protecting the natural appearance of the landscape, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources. The 

benefits would be realized in the short term and in the long term as well. 

Areas closed to OHV use would benefit from the absence of motor vehicle use. This designation would 

add to the effectiveness of the Wilderness Interim Management Policy (IMP) for the Scab Creek WSA. 

Overall, by decreasing the acreage in the “open” category, this alternative would more effectively manage 

OHV use than under Alternative 1. 

Pinedale RMP 4-177 
Chapter 4—Transportation Final EIS 

The impact from access management would be minimal, both in the short term and long term. Access 

acquisition occurs infrequently because of a limited budget and lack of willing sellers. Easements are only 

acquired when there is agreement between the buyer (BLM) and the seller. Generally, easements increase 

or improve legal access to the public lands. Private landowners are paid for granting easements across 

their property to the public lands. 

Travel management planning would enable land managers to assess the transportation needs of the 

planning area. By identifying needs, BLM would be better able to respond to the needs of the public for 

access to the public lands and would be better prepared to designate a transportation system that meets 

those needs. These impacts of transportation planning would be long term in nature. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

This alternative would eliminate all open areas and increase the closed areas to include the Lake 

Mountain WSA, Red Dugway/Fish Creek area, cultural resource sites, and the East Fork River WSR unit 

(Map 2-27). The acreage in the “limited to designated roads and trails” category would be significantly 

increased and the acreage in the “limited to existing roads and trails” category would be decreased (Map 

2-27). A notable component of the OHV designations under this alternative is the category for seasonal 

limitation on OHV access to the public lands, whereby 55% of the planning area would have some form 

of seasonal OHV limitation to protect public land and resource values. 

Wildlife habitat would be protected, and the visual quality of the areas in the “closed,” “limited to 

designated roads and trails,” and seasonal limitation areas would benefit from limited OHV activity. 

Cultural resources would benefit. The specific impacts would be less road proliferation and associated 

vegetation and soil damage. Fewer roads often mean higher quality wildlife habitat and less harassment of 

wildlife during critical times of the year. In terms of recreation, fewer roads often mean trading quantity 

of access for a higher quality of recreational experience. 

The overall impact of this alternative would be to extend a higher degree of protection to the public lands 

in terms of motor vehicle use than under any of the other alternatives. 

The impacts from access management and travel management would be similar to those under Alternative 

2. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 in that it proposes the elimination of all open areas and 

significant seasonal limitations on OHV use, and it would place about 13% of the planning area in the 

“limited to designated roads and trails” category (Map 2-35). As a result, the impacts would be similar to 

those under Alternative 3. 

OHV closures would protect the Lake Mountain WSA, the Pinedale Pathway, selected rock alignment 

sites, and the East Fork River WSR Unit from all potential motor vehicle impacts (road extension, 

damage to soils and vegetation). Motorized activities would be excluded from these areas, making them 

unavailable to people who choose to access the public lands only by motor vehicle or those who are 

unable to travel by means other than motor vehicles. 

Limiting motor vehicle use to designated roads and trails at the Boulder Lake, Scab Creek, CCC Ponds, 

and Upper Green River SRMAs; the East Fork River/Irish Canyon area; Miller Mountain and Ross Butte; 

selected cultural resource sites; the Muddy Creek/Badlands area; the Wyoming Range Front area; the 

Hoback area; and the Green River WSR Unit would protect them from potential motor vehicle impacts. 

4-178 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Transportation 

The impacts would include protection of wildlife habitat (fewer roads means less disturbance), protection 

of cultural resources, protection of visual resources, and preservation of the existing character of 

recreational activities and experiences. 

Seasonal limitations, which overlay other OHV designations, add an additional dimension of protection, 

primarily to wildlife habitat. The impact would be to reduce disturbance to wildlife during sensitive times 

of the year (normally in winter and during calving, lambing, and so forth). A secondary impact would be 

that it would provide a better resource for human use and enjoyment. 

Except for Alternative 3, this alternative would have the least acreage in the combined “Open”/“limited to 

existing roads and trails” category, making it more protective of resource values such as wildlife habitat, 

cultural resources, and visual resources than any of the other alternatives. 

The impacts from access management and travel management would be similar to those under Alternative 

2. 

Pinedale RMP 4-179 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Final EIS 

4.13 VEGETATION 

This section describes potential impacts on vegetation from management actions for other resource 

programs. This section discusses vegetation in general, Special Status Plants Species, and vegetation 

communities. FLPMA and the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health (USDI, BLM 1997) direct 

BLM to manage vegetation resources toward the maintenance or restoration of the physical function and 

biological health of vegetative ecosystems. Objectives are to maintain and improve the condition and 

trend in plant communities that provide wildlife habitat, recreation, forage, scientific, scenic, ecological, 

and water and soil conservation benefits for consumptive and nonconsumptive uses. 

4.13.1 Assumptions 

Assumptions can be made concerning the condition of the flora resource, vegetation, and forage responses 

to different stimuli and the level of activity within the planning area. The analysis is based on the 

following assumptions: 

• Environmental impacts associated with the management alternatives are caused by land use 

activities within the planning area. Impacts on vegetation resources are generally the result of 

activities that remove and disturb soil and vegetation. 

• Although reductions could be seen in some areas, the livestock type and stocking rate would 

remain relatively stable over the planning period. 

• Current trends in plant succession and vegetation health would continue. 

• Some existing plant communities likely would not be reestablished to pre-disturbance structure 

and density for more than 20 years. 

• Short-term vegetation impacts depend on the length of time it takes for a disturbed area to 

become revegetated, generally a 1- to 5-year time frame. 

• Grassland and shrubland communities would be maintained with a mix of species composition, 

cover, and age classes. 

• Noncommercial woodland communities would increase in age and cover with reduced 

composition and cover of understory species. 

• Where assessments for healthy rangeland standards have been conducted, riparian plant 

communities are functioning properly or are in the process of achieving PFC. 

• As more monitoring and survey data become available, it is possible that additional populations 

of existing Special Status Plant Species may be found. 

• Reclamation of Special Status Plant Species is difficult, and little success has been accomplished 

to date and is envisioned in the future. 

• Management of listed, proposed, and candidate T&E plant species is subject to the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA). 

4-180 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Vegetation 

4.13.2 Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources within the 

planning area, review of existing literature, and information provided by other agencies. Spatial analysis 

was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 computer software. Effects are quantified where 

possible. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes 

described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate. 

4.13.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

No impacts on vegetation management are anticipated as a result of implementing management actions 

for air quality. 

Management of cultural resources would have minor and short-term effects on vegetation resources. 

Management actions would generally focus on the avoidance and protection of cultural sites, which in 

turn would decrease surface-disturbing activities on or near such sites. This could result in the adjustment 

of a project location or design, but impacts on vegetation could still occur. Data recovery excavations 

would cause minor surface disturbance and vegetation removal. These areas are generally small (less than 

1 acre), and vegetation disturbance would usually be localized and temporary. Investigation and 

mitigation of cultural resources sites would often include surface disturbance and off-road travel. If 

Special Status Plants Species or plant communities were found in these areas, they would not be disturbed 

to minimize the effects on them. 

Forest management actions that would impact vegetation include tree thinning, timber harvesting, and 

other practices used to improve forest health. The impacts of thinning on vegetation would include 

increased vigor of the remaining trees and a more open tree canopy, which increases herbaceous plant 

cover. Fuel reduction would also reduce the frequency and intensity of wildland fires. Harvesting of 

commercial forestlands would increase herbaceous vegetation in the short term. Roads and skid trails 

would have both short-term and long-term impacts on vegetation cover, depending on the scale of the 

timber harvest and whether the roads and skid trails are needed for future harvesting. The impacts of these 

actions on vegetation would result in fewer trees but would lower fire potential because harvested areas 

could serve as buffer areas for wildland fires. 

Forestry actions within the planning area, including small timber sales, firewood gathering, and other 

permitted activities related to forest products, could result in the introduction and spread of noxious and 

invasive weeds. Vehicles, equipment, animals, and people could transport weed seed to activity sites. 

Lands and realty management actions would generally result in surface disturbance, which would increase 

the susceptibility to weed invasion or inadvertently spread existing weed patches. Lands proposed for 

exchange or acquisition sometimes have weed populations that would need to be considered in the initial 

screening process. The installation of utility systems and other facilities in the planning area would result 

in short-term vegetation disturbance until the area has been reclaimed. Native grasses and forbs would 

dominate reclaimed sites initially. Shrubs would return over a longer period of time. Long-term impacts 

would mostly be associated with the installation of access routes. Increased erosion and decreased 

vegetation cover would occur from soil compaction and the channelization of surface runoff in ruts and 

road ditches. Areas below mid-slope roads would become drier, reducing plant productivity and 

potentially changing species composition. 

Construction of utility systems and other facilities would cause short-term vegetation disturbance. 

Requirements for survey, avoidance, and protection of sensitive plants would reduce disturbance to 

Pinedale RMP 4-181 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Final EIS 

Special Status Plant Species and plant communities. As proposed ROWs are surveyed before realty 

actions, new locations of Special Status Plant Species and communities could be discovered, increasing 

knowledge of these plant species. 

Vegetation would be restored through reclamation within the first 5 years after construction, resulting in 

no long-term surface disturbance impact, except for access roads that may never be reclaimed. 

Reclamation would return some level of herbaceous and woody vegetation to the disturbed areas 

following construction, but would not achieve pre-disturbance vegetation composition, density, or 

production for many years. 

Implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health as the minimum acceptable conditions 

for public rangelands would increase the health and diversity of vegetation communities. Impacts on 

vegetation resulting from livestock grazing management on BLM-administered lands would include the 

removal of forage by livestock, which could alter the amount, condition, plant community composition, 

and vigor of vegetation in grazed areas. Grazing during the growing season or summer months could 

result in reduced vigor of desired species and a change in species composition. Concentration areas, 

including locations of supplemental minerals and water, could result in soil disturbance, vegetation 

removal, and altered plant community composition. Livestock grazing could be used as a tool to 

manipulate and improve plant community composition. Livestock management activities include travel 

via OHVs and horses and the use of livestock trailers. Over time, these activities could alter the cover and 

composition of vegetation in areas of repeated use, especially during periods of saturated soils. 

Riparian areas are more susceptible to grazing impacts during the hot season (July and early August). 

Livestock are naturally attracted to areas with water and thermal cover. Many grazing management 

strategies, such as rotation, deferment, rest from use, and the manipulation of season of use and grazing 

intensity, would be implemented to manage vegetation composition, cover, and vigor to maintain or 

achieve PFC in riparian areas or achieve DPC on upland plant communities. The implementation of 

riparian pastures and exclosures would increase the density, age class, and cover of desirable riparian 

plants, including willow, cottonwood, and herbaceous wetland/riparian plants, within the exclosures. 

Range improvements such as water developments, fences, exclosures, and vegetation treatments would 

result in disturbances to vegetation, including loss of vegetation cover and changes in plant composition 

and vigor adjacent to each project. Some impacts, such as vegetation removal for reservoir construction or 

changes in grazing use adjacent to improvements, would remain for the life of the project. Vegetation 

removal for fence construction would be short-term. Improved grazing management achieved through 

range improvements could provide periods of rest for plant growth and seed production to maintain plant 

vigor. 

Livestock grazing could maintain or create habitat for sensitive plants by reducing vegetation 

competition. However, livestock grazing could potentially reduce the occurrence of some species through 

trampling, consumption, and general site degradation. 

Livestock would contribute to the introduction and spread of undesirable plant species, including noxious 

weeds. Weed seeds could be transported by livestock. Areas where animals concentrate and disturb the 

soil would be particularly vulnerable to infestations of weeds. Range improvements that disturb the soil 

surface would provide locations for weeds to become established. Overgrazing of native vegetation in 

areas where BMPs have not yet been implemented could increase the susceptibility of an area to weed 

infestation. However, grazing plans that promote healthy ecosystem function would create conditions 

more resistant to the spread of weeds. 

4-182 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Vegetation 

Mineral resource development impacts on vegetation resources would include long- and short-term 

impacts, small and localized removal of vegetative surface cover, and major disturbances covering several 

hundred acres. Mineral development would fracture vegetation communities, change plant community 

structure and diversity, and alter vegetation landscapes. Long-term impacts would mostly be associated 

with permanent structures and construction of roads. Increased erosion and decreased vegetation cover 

would potentially occur from soil compaction and the channelization of surface runoff in ruts and road 

ditches. Areas below mid-slope roads would become drier, which would reduce plant productivity and 

potentially change species composition. Effects from minerals management could be reduced by COAs 

on APDs within these areas, which would be based on site-specific analysis and would establish specific, 

necessary mitigation measures not covered by lease stipulations for resource and environmental 

protection. The severity of effects would be dependent on the amount of activity and the success of 

reclamation efforts for disturbed areas. 

Reclamation of mineral resource development activity could offset impacts on vegetation resources by 

changing the species composition and increasing total perennial grass and forb cover in reclaimed areas. 

Within the first 5 years after construction, approximately 50% of disturbed vegetation would undergo 

reclamation. Initial reclamation would not achieve pre-disturbance vegetation composition, density, or 

production. The presence of rare or T&E species would often be identified as a result of baseline studies 

conducted in connection with new mineral development. Plant surveys would be conducted in potential 

habitat locations for all project types, which would identify wildlife habitats and aid in developing 

vegetation maps and baseline data. In addition, reclamation activities would provide opportunities for 

experimentation and refinement of revegetation techniques and processes that ultimately help mitigate all 

types of surface-disturbing activities. Native grasses and forbs would dominate reclaimed sites initially. 

Shrubs would return over a longer period of time. If reclamation is unsuccessful, changes in grazing 

management or AUM reductions could be necessary. 

Paleontological excavation and research activities would cause short-term, small, and localized impacts 

on vegetation by disturbing and removing soil. 

Recreational activities would result in localized impacts, such as vegetation disturbance, trampling, and 

removal as a result of camping and off-road travel activities. Recreational activities that require a permit 

would not be authorized in known locations of Special Status Plant Species if there were a potential to 

adversely impact the plants. Activities that do not require a permit, such as camping outside of designated 

campgrounds, could cause minor impacts on sensitive plants and their habitats. Visitor use and access 

would be promoted in SRMAs, resulting in increased vegetation disturbance. 

Management actions aimed at maintaining or improving soil conditions and minimizing soil erosion 

would also maintain or improve the condition of vegetation. 

OHV use would result in localized impacts on vegetation, such as reduction of vegetation cover and 

density and community composition changes. The generation of dust from vehicular travel on roads next 

to Special Status Species could affect plant photosynthesis and population survival because of the small 

number of individual plants in some areas. Reclamation would replace abandoned roads with herbaceous 

and shrubby vegetation and the impacts stated above would no longer occur. 

VRM Class I and II designations would minimally impact the timing and extent of vegetation treatments 

such as prescribed burns. VRM classifications would also prohibit or limit some surface-disturbing 

activities and thereby protect vegetation. 

Effective watershed management would result in healthy and diverse plant communities. Restricting 

surface disturbance around wetland/riparian areas, perennial surface waters, identified flood plains, and 

Pinedale RMP 4-183 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Final EIS 

ephemeral channels would reduce soil erosion, vegetation removal, and the potential for invasive weed 

establishment and spread. Conformance with water quality standards and watershed guidelines during 

construction of projects would assist in achieving the desired plant and litter cover objectives. 

The use of livestock exclosures to protect seeps and springs would preclude grazing by livestock but not 

necessarily by other grazing animals in these areas. Developed water sources on uplands would be used to 

improve distribution of livestock in wetland/riparian areas. This would help to improve species 

composition, vigor, and cover in wetland/riparian habitat. 

Maintenance of healthy soil conditions would enhance the viability, vigor, and abundance of Special 

Status Plant Species and plant communities. 

Impacts from vegetation treatments would include short-term losses of vegetation and changes in plant 

community structure. In the long term, treatments would be designed to improve the health and vigor of 

surviving vegetation, increase vegetation diversity, modify vegetation types (e.g., a change from shrubs to 

herbaceous vegetation), and modify age class and structure. The different types of vegetation treatments 

would include prescribed burning and cultural, mechanical, biological, and chemical treatment. 

Special Status Plant Species communities could be adversely impacted by the spread and proliferation of 

weeds because of their limited size and distribution. Weed management would help to control weed 

populations and thereby improve the health of native plant communities. Vegetation treatments such as 

prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would increase the potential for the establishment of 

invasive weeds because of increased soil surface exposure. These impacts could potentially be avoided by 

using chemical or biological treatments. Prescribed burns generally occur in the cooler seasons (April 

through June and September through November) to avoid burning the root crowns of herbaceous plants. 

Following fire treatment, native herbaceous plants generally return with increased vigor. 

The increase in oil and gas development activities, OHV use, and recreational activities would increase 

fire ignition sources. Increased fire frequency would result in a greater loss of vegetation cover over the 

short term, but could improve species composition and cover over the long term. Prescribed fire would 

generally have a long-term effect on vegetation by increasing the age and species diversity of plant 

communities, increasing plant vigor, and enhancing nutrient cycling. 

Wildland fires result in a short-term loss of vegetation, change the composition of a plant community, and 

inhibit plant succession. The vegetation response to wildland fire would be dependent on the size, 

location, intensity, season, timing, amount of precipitation, preexisting plant community type and 

condition, and abundance of weeds in the area. Wildland fires could burn with enough heat to kill soil 

organisms and root systems, resulting in diminished plant recruitment and growth rates, particularly for 

fire-sensitive species. 

Although wildland fires would have short-term localized impacts on vegetation, the long-term effect of 

fire would generally be increased vegetation production and diversity (i.e., diverse species, cover, and age 

class). Wildland fires would also cause a long-term decrease in fire-sensitive shrubs and trees; a shortterm increase in annual weeds, grass, and forb species; and a long-term increase in fire-resistant or firedependent grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees. Vegetative cover would be reduced during the first two 

growing seasons but would likely improve in the third year following a prescribed burn. Fire-sensitive 

shrubs and trees would eventually reestablish on burned sites. In lodgepole pine forests, wildland fire 

would remove duff and litter on the forest floor, allowing serotinous cone disarticulation and seeds to 

make contact with the soil and germinate. 

4-184 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Vegetation 

Surface disturbance associated with fire line construction, the use of heavy equipment, and other fire 

suppression activity would damage or destroy vegetation and accelerate natural soil erosion. Fire 

suppression would be concentrated in areas containing high resource and/or human values, where the 

benefits of fire suppression would outweigh the impacts. 

Wildland fires would affect Special Status Plants and plant communities by temporarily removing 

vegetation, changing plant community composition, inhibiting plant succession, and removing woody 

vegetation and plant litter. If Special Status Plants are dependent on a specific seral stage or associative 

plants, a wildland fire could upset the ecological balance that supports a sensitive plant’s habitat or plant 

community. Yet wildland fire could also enhance the habitat for Special Status Plants and serve as a 

catalyst for their reestablishment and proliferation. 

Wildland fires create an opportunity for the establishment or spread of invasive and noxious weeds by 

removing vegetation and increasing weed susceptibility. Most weeds respond rapidly after fire, and can 

out-compete native species. In areas where weeds occur or are in close proximity, wildland fire increases 

the likelihood of weed expansion. Firefighters and their equipment may also introduce or spread weeds. 

Some mechanical control activities disturb the soil surface and remove vegetation, creating an opportunity 

for the establishment or spread of weeds. Most of the vegetative communities within the planning area are 

adapted to mixed or high-severity fire (partial to total overstory removal). These types of fire regimes 

have short-term effects (loss) on the organic material in the soil and the potential for increased erosion 

and water flow until herbaceous cover is re-established. 

Prescribed fire would result in many of the impacts on vegetation described above. Prescribed fires would 

be planned, contained, and generally occur in the cooler seasons of the year (spring and fall). Prescribed 

fires usually burn at lower temperatures, enabling more rapid recovery of the surviving, fire-tolerant plant 

species. The change in ground surface temperature could damage vegetation root structure, but usually 

would not destroy the root crown of fire-tolerant perennial grasses, enabling them to flourish after the fire 

has removed competing shrubs. 

The wildlife impact on vegetation would be dependent on population levels, the distribution of those 

animals, and the ability of those animals to move. Key areas, including crucial winter ranges for mule 

deer and pronghorn where shrubs are heavily used, could exhibit vegetation shifts from sagebrush, 

bitterbrush, and mountain mahogany to conifers, grasses, forbs, and annuals, and in some cases, bare 

ground. Extensive browsing of desirable shrubs in riparian habitats could impact the density, height, and 

vigor of such species as willows, aspen, water birch, cottonwood, dogwood, and currant. Prairie dogs 

could affect the density and type of herbaceous vegetation around their towns. Beaver activity could 

lower the density of willows, aspen, and other streamside vegetation, although the ponds that beavers 

create often raise the water table, allowing for more extensive areas of water-dependent shrubs and 

herbaceous plants. The distribution, population, and grazing intensity of wildlife could change or delay 

vegetation treatments, and vegetation recovery following a treatment could be slowed if heavy wildlife 

utilization occurs. 

Management actions associated with SD/MAs would preclude most impacts on vegetation in those areas. 

For example, management of WSAs would preclude surface-disturbing activities in these areas; and land 

use restrictions in ACECs would limit the extent of surface disturbance. However, the designation of 

SD/MAs would increase popularity and actual use in these areas, resulting in increased potential for 

vegetation disturbance and removal and weed proliferation. 

Management actions designed to prevent accidental spills of hazardous materials would impact vegetation 

by providing protection of riparian and upland areas. Because hazardous materials (e.g., oil, oil and gas 

byproducts, pesticides, cleaning solvents) are being produced and transported within the planning area, 

Pinedale RMP 4-185 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Final EIS 

the threat of accidents or spills exists. No impacts on vegetation would result unless a spill or accident 

occurs. If a spill occurs, mitigation and cleanup would rarely succeed in recovering a riparian or upland 

area to its original condition over the short term; thus, long-term impacts would result. 

4.13.4 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 1. 

Timber management under this alternative would provide for 37,729 acres of forest and woodland areas 

to be available for production of forest products. Forests and woodlands managed for intensive 

management (Category 1) and harvesting of wood products would include 1,644 acres. Intensively 

managed forest would experience increases in roads and soil disturbance. These forests would have an 

open canopy and more herbaceous vegetation and may be more fire resistant. Forests and woodlands 

managed for production of wood products with emphasis on improving wildlife habitat and watershed 

stability and recreation (Category 2) would occur on 36,085 acres. These areas would be impacted to a 

lesser degree by timber harvesting and management activities. Approximately 2,382 acres of forest would 

be under restrictive forest management (Categories 3 and 4). These areas would have minimal forest 

management activities and could include more advanced seral stages. They could also be more 

susceptible to wildland fire. 

Noncommercial forestlands would be managed primarily to sustain forest health objectives and for the 

benefit of other resource values such as wildlife, watershed, fisheries, and healthy plant communities. 

Management practices would include removing encroaching conifers from shrub and aspen stands, 

thinning diseased and insect-infested trees, and reducing fuel loads. These practices would result in 

increased vegetation diversity, altered successional status, increased plant vigor, increased available water 

for herbaceous vegetation, and improved watershed health. 

Pipeline construction would disturb an average of 553 acres per year or a total of 11,063 acres. This 

vegetation loss would be temporary, as reclamation would return herbaceous vegetation to the disturbance 

areas following construction. Disturbed areas would be reclaimed with native plant species, but reclaimed 

areas would not have the same level of vegetative cover or species diversity as before disturbance. Many 

plant communities, such as shrub- and tree-dominated vegetation types, would not reach pre-disturbance 

conditions for 10 to 50 years following reclamation. 

The RFD for oil and gas development under this alternative would be 7,192 federal wells. Drill pad 

construction would create an initial disturbance of approximately 1,080 acres per year or a total of 21,599 

acres. More than 50% of this disturbance would be reclaimed within 4 years, leaving a long-term surface 

disturbance impact of 17,372 acres. Similar impacts would occur for other leasable, locatable, and salable 

minerals, although on a smaller scale. 

Impacts from minerals management to Special Status Plant Species would be negligible because of 

required mitigation measures. As proposed developments are reviewed prior to permitting, new locations 

of Special Status Plant Species and communities might be found, increasing knowledge of these plant 

species. 

Construction and improvement of roads and highways (104 miles per year) would disturb 528 acres per 

year or a total of 10,567 acres. Approximately 98% of these roads would be included in the estimated 

acreage of disturbance for oil and gas development. 

4-186 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Vegetation 

Where surface and vegetation disturbance is limited by SD/MA management actions, impacts on Special 

Status Plant Species and plant communities would be reduced. This would include the Rock Creek ACEC 

and Beaver Creek ACEC. The Rock Creek ACEC and the Deadline-Graphite elk winter range area 

(approximately 25,640 total acres) would be closed to oil and gas leasing, which would help to protect 

vegetation resources in these areas. 

Achieving the objective of protecting the Rock Creek drainage within the Rock Creek ACEC, ensuring 

quality aquatic habitat for the CRCT, and providing crucial winter range for a portion of the Piney elk 

herd would ensure that plant vigor and cover was sufficient to meet and maintain DPC and PFC status. 

Achieving the objective to ensure quality aquatic habitat for the sensitive CRCT in the Beaver Creek 

ACEC and to protect elk calving habitat would ensure that plant vigor and cover was sufficient to meet 

and maintain DPC and PFC status. Restricting clear-cutting within 1,000 feet of Beaver Creek would 

increase the age of the timber stand and alter the structure in this area. 

4.13.5 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 2. 

Increased timber harvest would increase associated impacts on vegetation compared to those under 

Alternative 1. Timber management under Alternative 2 would provide for 35,120 acres of forest and 

woodland areas for production of forest products or harvest. Intensively managing forested areas would 

result in increased roads and soil disturbance. These forests would have an open canopy and more 

herbaceous vegetation and could be more fire resistant. The 12,346 forested acres within WSAs would be 

indirectly managed to restore the forest landscape. Impacts of these actions would alter the current fire 

regime in the area and most likely stabilize the seral stage at mid-seral. 

Precommercial thinning in areas that have been previously treated would prevent these areas from 

becoming densely populated with small understory trees. This would also lower the probability of 

destructive, uncontrolled wildland fires. 

Impacts on vegetation from lands and realty management would include the loss of 5,000 acres of native 

plant communities from the disposal and loss of an unknown number of acres owing to DLE. Loss of an 

unknown amount of riparian/wetland areas would directly impact the diversity of habitats provided by 

these highly productive vegetative areas. 

Impacts on vegetation from livestock grazing would include increased utilization, increased trampling, 

and removal of vegetation. Activating suspended nonuse AUMs (Table A20-1) would increase forage 

consumption compared to Alternative 1 and would create additional stress to herbaceous forage, which 

would affect vigor and plant community composition in some areas. Additional range improvements such 

as reservoirs, troughs, and fences would increase disturbance and loss of vegetation in those areas because 

of increased use. 

Removing existing exclosures and limiting new exclosures would impact vegetation resources that were 

formerly protected from grazing. Exclosures often protect riparian areas where livestock and wildlife 

concentrate, and where other management actions have failed to protect the vegetation. Lower plant 

diversity, production, and vigor could result from this action. 

Pinedale RMP 4-187 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Final EIS 

Additional disturbances from increased oil and gas development would increase impacts on vegetation by 

disturbing and destroying more vegetation compared to Alternative 1. Pipeline construction would disturb 

an average of 581 acres per year or a total of 11,611 acres. 

The RFD for oil and gas development would total 7,804 federal wells under this alternative, an increase 

of 612 wells over Alternative 1. Drill pad construction would create an initial disturbance of 

approximately 1,193 acres per year, or a total of 23,872 acres. Long-term surface disturbance of 18,689 

acres would result in long-term vegetation losses in these areas. 

Impacts from minerals management to Special Status Plant Species would be negligible because of 

required mitigation measures. As proposed developments are reviewed prior to permitting, new locations 

of Special Status Plant Species and communities might be found, increasing knowledge of these plant 

species. 

Reducing OHV Open areas by 226,610 acres and increasing the amount of area in which OHV use is 

limited to existing roads and trails would reduce the level of vegetation disturbance compared to the level 

under Alternative 1. 

Under this alternative, additional development of recreational facilities would have minimal direct 

impacts on vegetation. However, indirect impacts (vegetation trampling and removal and soil 

compaction) would increase as a result of increased public use of these areas. 

Impacts resulting from transportation and access management would be greater than those under 

Alternative 1. Fewer restrictions and more opportunity for access would result from increased 

development and an expanded road network within the planning area. This could increase the level of 

vegetation disturbance and removal throughout the planning area. 

Construction and improvement of roads and highways (114 miles per year) would disturb 574 acres per 

year or a total of approximately 11,481 acres. Approximately 98% of these roads would be included in the 

estimated acreage of disturbance for oil and gas development. 

Increased vegetation treatments under this alternative would increase the level of vegetation disturbance. 

This would increase the proportion of early- and mid-seral plant communities to late-seral plant 

communities, resulting in vigorous, diverse, and productive plant communities. Prescribed fire treatments 

would reintroduce fire into fire-dependent plant communities on a landscape scale, from which they have 

been long absent. 

Management of aspen stands for early-seral conditions would increase total aspen cover and total 

vegetation diversity and understory production in aspen stands (Kay 1997). 

Allowing new permanent facilities within flood plain and wetland/riparian areas would impact vegetation 

in these areas by permanently removing vegetation and possibly contributing hazardous runoff and 

materials. The additional water discharged from oil and gas production would result in additional 

activities to mitigate the impacts of this water. Increases in soil salinity would change riparian vegetation 

composition from salt-intolerant species to salt-tolerant species. 

Increased fire suppression efforts would decrease the extent of mid-summer and hot fires over the short 

term. However, additional fire suppression efforts under this alternative would allow natural succession 

and fuel accumulation to shift some plant communities into late-seral shrub- and conifer-dominated 

communities. Continuation of this trend would result in a potential increase in the size and intensity of 

wildland fires. Increased suppression activity would also increase soil disturbance and potentially increase 

4-188 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Vegetation 

susceptibility to weed invasion and proliferation. However, the smaller number of acres burned during the 

hot season would limit opportunities for weed invasion. 

Additional rehabilitation and restoration efforts would mitigate losses from wildland fires in areas where 

commodity values are high. This would return native vegetation to these areas more quickly than would 

naturally occur. 

Prescribed fire would likely reduce some fuel loading; however, prescribed fire would more commonly be 

used to assist vegetation communities in reaching DPC to meet forage and other commodity resource 

objectives. This would lower the seral stage and reduce shrub density, where commodity benefits could 

be best realized. Aspen colonies would be managed for early-seral stages, which would increase 

herbaceous production and diversity in these areas. 

Impacts on vegetation from SD/MA management would be less than those under Alternative 1. 

Additional withdrawals in the CCC Ponds SRMA would impact vegetation management by possibly 

restricting vegetation treatments and range improvements in these areas. This area would also receive 

protection from surface-disturbing activities. 

The Deadline-Graphite elk winter range area would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to seasonal 

wildlife restrictions, which would impact vegetation not impacted under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

The Trapper’s Point ACEC would be closed to oil and gas leasing and closed to all surface-disturbing 

activities except those enhancing the viability of big game migration and the operations of the Green 

River Drift to interpret or enhance understanding of the site. This would ensure that vegetation was not 

disturbed or removed by surface-disturbing activities. 

4.13.6 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 3. 

Impacts resulting from forest management would be less than those under Alternative 2. Fewer acres 

would be available for timber harvest, resulting in fewer impacts. Managing forests for a disturbancebased seral state would create a more diverse forest age class structure and as a result, woody vegetation, 

fuel loadings, insect infestations, and catastrophic wildland fires would decrease. The lower timber 

harvest proposed under this alternative would also reduce the ability for weeds to establish in disturbed 

areas. 

Impacts from lands and realty management would be less than under Alternative 1. Increased withdrawals 

(a total of 65,750 acres) would reduce impacts associated with locatable minerals development. In 

addition, riparian/wetland and aquatic resources would not be suitable for sale, but could be exchanged 

for lands of equal or greater monetary and ecologically functional value. This action would likely 

maintain federal jurisdiction and related protection measures for many areas containing aquatic 

vegetation. Impacts also include the loss of 790 acres of native plant communities owing to disposal, 

which would result in a much lower effect on the native species composition compared to that under 

Alternative 2. 

Impacts from livestock grazing activities would be minimized under this alternative. Livestock 

improvements would be designed to support vegetation objectives and minimize impacts on vegetation. 

Pinedale RMP 4-189 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Final EIS 

Grazing would be discontinued on several allotments on select oil and gas fields, which would eliminate 

impacts on vegetation from livestock grazing on these allotments. 

The decreased oil and gas development proposed under Alternative 3 would result in reduced vegetation 

disturbance and a lower potential for weed invasion compared to that under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Prohibiting geophysical vehicle-based activities in the Aspen Ridge Rock Alignment Site, Ross Butte, 

rock art sites, Wind River Front MA, and within the Long Island Watershed where slopes are greater than 

10% would reduce disturbance in these areas. 

Impacts from minerals management to Special Status Plant Species would not occur because of required 

mitigation measures and no surface disturbance requirements. 

Pipeline construction would disturb an average of 386 acres per year or a total of 7,719 acres over the 20-

year planning period. 

The RFD for oil and gas development would total 5,209 federal wells under this alternative, 

approximately 1,983 fewer wells than under Alternative 1. Drill pad construction would create an initial 

disturbance of approximately 796 acres per year or a total of 15,923 acres. Long-term surface disturbance 

of 13,325 acres would result in long-term vegetation losses in these areas. 

Eliminating the OHV Open areas and increasing the amount of area, by more than 140,600 acres, in 

which OHV use is limited to designated roads and trails would greatly reduce the level of vegetation 

disturbance compared to Alternative 1. 

More restrictions and fewer opportunities for access would result from decreased development and a 

limited road network within the planning area. However, impact intensity resulting from transportation 

and access management would be similar to that under Alternative 1. 

Construction and improvement of roads and highways (76 miles per year) would disturb 382 acres per 

year or a total of 7,646 acres. Approximately 98% of these roads would be included in the estimated 

acreage of disturbance for oil and gas development. 

Impacts from vegetation management would be less than those under Alternative 1. Plant communities 

would be managed to meet wildlife habitat, watershed, recreational, and biodiversity values and 

objectives. Upland communities would be managed to maximize diversity and community health. This 

would result in riparian vegetation that consists of mid- to late-seral-stage communities with a mixture of 

herbaceous and multi-aged woody species. Other effects would include increased vegetation production, 

increased diversity, and a more stable riparian plant growth medium. 

Vegetation treatments would be designed to reestablish the natural role of fire in the ecosystem. This 

would result in lower-seral plant communities with less woody species. Additional use of exclosures 

would decrease grazing impacts where the exclosures were constructed. 

Impacts resulting from fire and fuels management would be less than under Alternative 1. The restoration 

of fire to its natural role in the ecosystem would be emphasized under Alternative 3, which would alter 

plant community age structure from predominantly late- to early- and mid-seral and create more diverse 

plant communities. Wildland fire would be used to maintain and improve fire-dependent plant 

communities. This alternative would require less fire line construction and other surface disturbance, 

which would reduce disturbance and removal of vegetation and limit areas where weed invasions could 

occur. 

4-190 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Vegetation 

Only prescribed fire would be used as a vegetation manipulation tool to improve vegetation composition, 

age class, and diversity. Mechanical, biological, and wildland fire control techniques could be employed 

to reduce hazardous fuels and manage fire fuels. This would limit the timing, size, location, and scope of 

these treatments, which would result in much less vegetation manipulation treatment occurring in the 

planning area. 

Wildlife and fisheries objectives would be addressed during reclamation activities, which would influence 

the plant seed mix selection used in reclaimed areas. Impacts on vegetation from surface-disturbing 

activities would not occur within certain wildlife buffers, which would help to retain a native vegetation 

composition. Managing important waterfowl areas for preferred waterfowl habitat would benefit 

vegetation. Protecting unique pothole wildlife habitat used by numerous species, such as the trumpeter 

swan, would enhance vegetation resources in this area. 

Generally, this alternative would be more restrictive of resource exploitation within SD/MAs than the 

other alternatives. This would protect vegetation from disturbance associated with roads, oil and gas 

activity, locatable minerals activity, logging, and OHV use. 

Oil and gas leasing would not be allowed in the Rock Creek ACEC within the Rock Creek Watershed 

boundary, Miller Mountain MA, Wind River Front MA, Boulder Lake SRMA, Upper Green River 

SRMA, CCC Ponds SRMA, or Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA. Timber harvesting would not be 

allowed in the Beaver Creek ACEC, Miller Mountain MA, or Wind River Front MA. These actions 

would limit vegetation disturbance in these areas, which would reduce the degree of plant community 

composition changes and the loss of vegetation cover. 

4.13.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 4. 

Impacts resulting from OHV and fire and fuels management on vegetation management would be similar 

to those under Alternative 3. 

Impacts resulting from forest management would be less than those under Alternative 1. The equivalent 

number of acres could be treated, but less forest product would be harvested, primarily because of the 

emphasis on removing small diameter trees and concentrating on forest health issues. Woodlands would 

also be treated under this alternative, compared to Alternative 1 in which none were considered. This 

emphasis on forest health and restoration should improve wildlife habitat and resistance and resilience to 

wildland fire. Managing forests for a disturbance-based seral state would create a more diverse forest age 

class structure. The lower timber harvest proposed under this alternative would also reduce the ability for 

weeds to establish themselves in disturbed areas. 

Impacts from lands and realty management actions would be less than under Alternative 1. Disturbance 

and removal of vegetation resources would be reduced because less development (i.e., ROWs) would 

occur. Impacts also include the loss of 790 acres of native plant communities, with the corresponding 

impacts similar to those under Alternative 3. 

Implementation of this alternative would ensure that impacts on vegetation from overutilization by 

livestock were minimized. Total AUMs would be maintained at 107,907. Livestock improvements such 

as water developments, fences, and exclosures would be designed to support vegetation objectives and 

minimize impacts on vegetation. 

Pinedale RMP 4-191 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Final EIS 

Oil and gas development under this alternative would result in long- and short-term impacts on vegetation 

resources. Prohibiting vehicle-based geophysical activities in the Aspen Ridge Rock Alignment Site, Ross 

Butte, rock art sites, Wind River Front MA, and within the Long Island Watershed where slopes are 

greater than 10% would reduce disturbance in these areas where vegetation disturbance causes soil 

instability. 

Impacts from minerals management to Special Status Plant Species would not occur because of required 

mitigation measures and no surface disturbance requirements. 

Initial pipeline construction would disturb an average of 501 acres per year or a total of 10,027 acres. 

The RFD for oil and gas development would total 7,136 federal wells under this alternative, 

approximately 56 fewer wells than under Alternative 1. Drill pad construction would create an initial 

disturbance of approximately 1,093 acres per year or a total of 21,853 acres. Long-term surface 

disturbance of 17,330 acres would create long-term vegetation losses in these areas. 

Construction and improvement of roads and highways (105 miles per year) would disturb 523 acres per 

year or a total of 10,506 acres. Approximately 98% of these roads would be included in the estimated 

acreage of disturbance for oil and gas development. 

Plant communities would be managed to meet wildlife habitat, livestock management, watershed, and 

recreational and biodiversity values and objectives. Upland vegetation communities would be managed to 

maximize diversity and community health. This would result in riparian vegetation communities that 

consist of mid- to late-seral-stage communities with a mixture of herbaceous and multi-aged woody 

species. In short, this alternative would increase plant and age diversity in most vegetation types. Other 

benefits would include increased vegetation production and aesthetic plant values. 

Vegetation treatments would be designed to reestablish the natural role of fire in the ecosystem. This 

would increase the mosaic pattern of vegetation and cause higher seral communities to be more dispersed 

among low- and mid-seral communities. Additional use of exclosures would decrease grazing impacts 

where the exclosures were constructed. 

Prescribed fire; wildland fire; and chemical, biological, and mechanical vegetation methods would be 

used to manipulate vegetation, providing land managers the tools they need to maintain PFC. Vegetation 

treatments would be designed to mimic the natural role of wildland fires in the ecosystem, while 

maintaining multiple uses of the land and preventing weed establishment in treated areas. Treated areas 

would be rested from grazing for a minimum of two full growing seasons after treatment, which would 

ensure the proper recovery time for plants following a fire. 

Any areas with Special Status Plant Species would be managed with emphasis on those plants and the 

plant communities that support them. This could alter vegetation manipulation treatments in these areas if 

they were to interfere with the Special Status Plant Species or communities. 

Wildlife and fisheries objectives would be addressed during reclamation activities, which would influence 

the plant seed mix selection used in reclaimed areas. Impacts on vegetation from surface-disturbing 

activities would not occur within certain wildlife buffers, which would help to retain native vegetation 

composition. Managing important waterfowl areas for preferred waterfowl habitat would help to maintain 

and protect vegetation. 

The effects of wildlife and fisheries management would be less than those under Alternative 1. Riparian 

areas that support habitat for sensitive fish and CRCT would be managed for a seral stage appropriate for 

4-192 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Vegetation 

the maximum benefit to the species. In addition, under Alternative 4 all riparian areas would be managed 

to meet or exceed PFC. This would usually increase the vegetation age structure of the riparian area and 

increase vegetation types that provide shading to stream banks. Increased emphasis on maintaining and 

improving habitats for sensitive species would possibly limit vegetation manipulation treatments in these 

areas. 

Management of most SD/MAs would be similar to that proposed under Alternative 1, except that the 

entire Rock Creek ACEC and the Deadline-Graphite elk winter range area (approximately 25,330 total 

acres) and the East Fork River WSR Unit would be closed to oil and gas leasing and geophysical 

exploration. The CCC Ponds SRMA and the Green River Unit would also be closed to oil and gas 

leasing. These SD/MA management actions would reduce surface disturbance and serve to maintain and 

protect vegetation resources within these areas. Management of the New Fork Potholes ACEC, Scab 

Creek SRMA, and Boulder Lake SRMA would be similar to that under Alternative 3. 

The Miller Mountain Management Area would put limitations on general surface disturbance and travel, 

which would limit development of range improvements in this area and protect vegetation from 

disturbance associated with vehicle use. 

Pinedale RMP 4-193 
Chapter 4—Visual Resources Final EIS 

4.14 VISUAL RESOURCES 

This section presents potential impacts on visual resources from management actions for other resource 

programs. Existing conditions concerning VRM are described in Chapter 3 (Section 3.14). 

4.14.1 Assumptions 

The analysis was based on the following assumptions: 

• VRM objectives would be achieved. 

• Procedures would be established for VRM, including completing contrast ratings and developing 

mitigation measures as appropriate for projects. 

• VRM objectives provide for varying degrees of change (impact) to the visual quality of the 

landscape. For example, VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major 

modifications (e.g., visual impacts) of the existing character of the landscape. These 

modifications may create substantial impacts and may be the major focus of viewer attention. 

4.14.2 Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of the area and its 

resources. Often, quantitative data are not available for visual resource impact assessment, in which case 

best professional judgment is used. Impacts are often described using ranges of potential impact or in 

qualitative terms. 

4.14.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Management actions would have effects on visual resources in VRM Class II areas if the action caused 

impacts that exceeded the allowable level. 

There would be no impact on the visual quality of the landscape in Class I and II areas. The objective for 

Class I allows virtually no change to the visual character of the landscape. In Class II areas, projects may 

be seen but may not create sufficient impact (i.e., contrast with the surrounding landscape) to attract the 

attention of the casual observer. However, ongoing resource use and development in Class III and IV 

areas would have the potential to impact visual resources. This is particularly true in areas that are, at the 

present time, largely natural in appearance. Activities that have the greatest potential to affect the visual 

quality of the landscape are oil and gas development or other activities that require substantial road 

building, clearing of vegetation, or other activities that introduce noticeable visual contrast to the 

landscape. Degradation of visual qualities would primarily occur from surface-disturbing activities, such 

as those associated with construction of ROWs (e.g., pipelines, transmission lines, communication lines) 

and oil and gas facilities (e.g., well pads, reserve pits, roads). The development of permanent structures 

would result in long-term degradation of scenic quality and in some cases could become the dominant 

feature on the landscape. The degree of impact would depend on the amount of development projected to 

occur and the effectiveness of mitigation measures (e.g., siting, painting, and screening). Other activities, 

such as vegetation manipulation (e.g., prescribed fire) and OHV use, would affect scenic quality by 

removing soil and vegetation and creating temporary, short-term intrusions on the landscape. 

4-194 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Visual Resources 

Project development would impact all landscape character elements: form, line, color, and texture. 

• Form—By introducing forms such as clearings in the vegetation or structures that contrast with 

natural forms of the landscape 

• Line—By introducing lines such as roads or ROWs that contrast with natural lines 

• Color—By causing change in color such as exposing soil or introducing structures having a color 

that contrasts with the natural colors in the landscape 

• Texture—By changing the texture of the land or structures; for example, by placing a smooth 

structure such as a storage tank or building against a coarse background of sagebrush or juniper 

vegetation. 

Even though resource development activities may meet VRM Class III and IV objectives, the fact that 

projects are seen and attract attention (Class III) or may dominate the view of the casual observer means 

they would impact visual resources (the scenic quality or character of the landscape). For Class III and IV 

areas that currently have ongoing development activities, additional development would add to the 

cumulative impacts from development in those areas. In other words, more surface disturbance or 

structures would add to the cumulative impact of resource development on the visual quality of the 

landscape. 

Oil and gas development would be augmented by large numbers of lights, because drilling rigs operate at 

all hours of the day and night. The ability to substantially shield the nighttime sky from the ambient light 

created by fluid mineral drilling operations is somewhat limited by operational safety requirements. Night 

lighting in the immediate area of gas field development, and potentially in large areas surrounding the gas 

field, would significantly reducing the nighttime viewing experiences of individuals. Lights on the valley 

floor could make night viewing of the sky difficult from all areas of the planning area and even from the 

surrounding mountain ranges. 

Protection of scenic quality and landscape character would primarily occur from the implementation of 

management actions designed to protect natural resources. Management of soil, water, vegetation, and 

fish and wildlife habitat would generally limit the amount of surface-disturbing activities and associated 

vegetation removal. 

Sale of public lands would remove all VRM designations and accompanying objectives for protection of 

their scenic values. 

Actions designed to prevent surface disturbance (such as CSU, NSO, and prohibiting surface disturbance) 

and disturbance to wildlife and Special Status Species would indirectly limit the level of change to 

characteristic landscapes, which would help meet VRM objectives of retaining or preserving the existing 

character of the landscape. This would increase the potential for landscapes in VRM Class II areas to 

retain or preserve their existing visual character. 

4.14.4 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 1. This alternative places nearly 90% of the planning area in the combined VRM Classes III 

and IV, which provide for varying degrees of visual impact from resource development activities. It 

Pinedale RMP 4-195 
Chapter 4—Visual Resources Final EIS 

would allow visual impacts that would change the character of the landscape and would dominate the 

view of the casual observer (Class IV) on 70% of the total public land surface area of the planning area. 

The majority of the planning area would be available for oil and gas leasing, so impacts from 

accompanying development would be widespread throughout the area. 

Designating 247,250 acres open to OHV use and 662,060 acres limited to existing roads and trails would 

cause visual impacts through road proliferation and vegetation loss. Designating 13,620 acres “closed to 

OHV use” would provide protection from visual impacts owing to OHV use. 

The visual quality of WSAs would be protected. Under this alternative, they are managed under both the 

Wilderness IMP and the VRM Class I objective, which would protect them until Congress provides 

alternate direction for their management. 

ROWs associated with oil and gas development or roads would create linear features across the 

landscape. Range improvement projects, especially fences, consist of noticeable structures that could 

change characteristic landscapes, but the level of change would be low. 

4.14.5 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 2. This alternative places 91% of the planning area in VRM Classes III and IV, which provide 

for varying degrees of visual impact from resource development activities. 

This alternative would provide for the greatest degree of visual impact of any of the alternatives. Relative 

to Alternative 1, the acreage in Class IV would be increased, Class I protection for the Lake Mountain and 

Scab Creek WSAs would be eliminated, the acreage in Class II would be slightly increased, and the 

acreage in Class III would be decreased. This alternative would allow visual impacts that would change 

the character of the landscape and dominate the view of the casual observer (Class IV) on 70% of the total 

public land surface area of the planning area. 

Impacts would result from surface disturbance and construction of structures, primarily (but not 

exclusively) from the oil and gas industry. Vegetative manipulation, range improvement projects, and 

communication facilities would also impact visual resources. Impacts on form, line, color, and texture 

would occur. 

Designating 20,640 acres open to OHV use and 874,870 acres limited to existing roads and trails would 

cause visual impacts through road proliferation and vegetation loss. On the other hand, designating 8,400 

acres closed to OHV use and 18,970 acres limited to designated roads and trails would protect them from 

OHV-related visual impacts. This alternative has significantly fewer acres in the “open” category than 

those under Alternative 1 and would cause considerably less visual impact as a result. 

The visual quality of WSAs would be protected, because they are managed under the Wilderness IMP to 

protect them until Congress provides alternate direction for their management. 

4.14.6 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 3. This alternative would place 58% of the planning area in Classes III and IV and the 

remaining 42% in Classes I and II (40% of the planning area would be in Class II). 

4-196 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Visual Resources 

This alternative would provide the greatest degree of protection of visual resources, and particularly more 

protection than Alternatives 1 and 2. Relative to Alternative 1, the acreage in Class II would be 

substantially increased, the Class I protection for the Lake Mountain and Scab Creek WSAs would be 

maintained, the acreage in Class III would be increased, and the acreage in Class IV would be 

dramatically decreased. 

By affording a greater degree of protection to visual resources, the impacts would be decreased. As 

indicated above, 40% of the planning area would be in Class II versus 8% under Alternative 1. 

Under this alternative, 751,920 acres would be limited to existing roads and trails. Visual impacts through 

road proliferation and vegetation loss would occur as a result. On the other hand, 30,350 acres would be 

closed to OHV use and 140,610 acres would be limited to designated roads and trails. This action would 

extend protection from visual impacts on those areas. This alternative has no acreage in the “open” 

category and would cause considerably less visual impact as a result. 

4.14.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 4. This alternative would place 70% of the planning area in Classes III and IV and the 

remaining 30% in Classes I and II (28% of the planning area would be in Class II). 

This alternative would provide less protection of visual resources than Alternative 3 but much more than 

Alternatives 1 or 2. Relative to Alternative 1, the acreage in Class II would be substantially increased, 

Class I protection for the Lake Mountain and Scab Creek WSAs would be maintained, the acreage in 

Class III would be substantially increased, and the acreage in Class IV would be dramatically decreased. 

By affording a greater degree of protection to visual resources, the impacts would be decreased. Under 

this alternative, 30% of the planning area would be in Classes I and II versus 10% under Alternative 1. 

Class IV areas would cover 27% of the planning area, versus 69% under Alternative 1 and 78% under 

Alternative 2. 

Designating 754,480 acres limited to existing roads and trails would cause visual impacts through road 

proliferation and vegetation loss. On the other hand, 26,320 acres closed to OHV use and 139,000 acres 

limited to designated roads and trails would be protected from visual impacts. This alternative would 

eliminate OHV Open areas and would cause considerably less visual impact as a result. OHV-created 

disturbance generally is less noticeable than existing roads and other disturbances. The exception is in 

localized areas where extensive user-created routes are more noticeable and potentially visually 

impairing. 

Pinedale RMP 4-197 
Chapter 4—Water Quality Final EIS 

4.15 WATERSHED AND WATER QUALITY (SURFACE WATER AND 

GROUNDWATER) 

This section deals with the interactions of water and the earth’s surface and subsurface. It covers potential 

changes to water quality and land quality resulting from the land/water interactions and how actions taken 

to make use of or protect other resources may affect water quality and watershed health. 

4.15.1 Assumptions 

The analysis was based on the following assumptions: 

• The State of Wyoming has primacy with regard to water quality and quantity. BLM manages the 

public lands within the analysis area. The management of these lands can affect the quality and 

timing of flows of the waters through them. Because the state must comply with federal laws, 

compliance with state laws includes compliance with federal rules and regulations, including the 

Clean Water Act, Colorado River Salinity Compact, Safe Drinking Water Act, and others. 

Therefore, it is assumed that any discharged water would meet water quality standards at the 

point of discharge. 

• Actions that provide protection for the soil and vegetation resources will generally mitigate 

impacts on the water resource as well. 

• As populations expand in the area, disturbances created by OHVs will most likely continue to 

expand. 

• Water flows down gradient. The faster water flows, the more and bigger the material it can carry. 

• Management actions for soil resources will help minimize soil erosion and sediment, salt, and 

nutrient loading to water bodies. 

• Degradation of stream channel and land health conditions can be quite rapid. Recovery is often a 

much slower process. It is generally more efficient to prevent degradation in the first place rather 

than to recover a degraded system. 

• As mineral development continues to expand, there will be an increase in produced water 

volumes that will decrease as the rate of development decreases and the aquifers are drained. 

• Grazing management plans will be correctly followed and rangeland improvements properly 

maintained. 

• The more rapid the speed of overland flow the greater the potential for water quality degradation. 

Keeping water on the land longer and allowing for greater volumes of infiltration decreases the 

potential for water quality degradation. 

4.15.2 Methods of Analysis 

Analysis of impacts on water resources is based on achieving the watershed objectives of managing 

surface use and groundwater resources to maintain or improve water quality according to the classes, 

uses, and standards enumerated in the State of Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations, and to 

4-198 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Water Quality 

maintain the land health in compliance with the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health. This includes 

maintaining wetland/riparian areas at PFC or better. 

The Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health contains the minimum qualitative standards for watershed 

health. The minimum standard for riparian areas may also be described as PFC, as described in Technical 

References 1737-15, A Users Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and Supporting Science 

for Lotic Areas, and 1737-16, A Users Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and Supporting 

Science for Lentic Areas. 

State of Wyoming water quality standards will be used as minimal standards for discharge criteria and 

aquatic habitat determination. 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources within the 

planning area, review of existing literature, and information provided by other agencies. Spatial analysis 

was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 computer software. Effects are quantified where 

possible. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes 

described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate. 

4.15.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

There is a close correlation between the soil, vegetation, and water resources. Removal of vegetation 

generally increases the rate at which water flows off the land. Substantial disturbance to soil, including 

compaction of soil or changes in vegetative cover that result in decreased surface coverage, root depth, or 

root density, would increase water runoff; alter timing and duration of runoff; reduce infiltration capacity; 

lower soil productivity; and accelerate erosion, sedimentation, and the addition of nutrients and sediment 

loads to stream channels, thereby degrading water quality, channel structure, and overall watershed 

health. 

Increases in resource development and population will cause subsequent increases in surface disturbance 

related to construction of roads, well pads, and pipelines; OHV use; recreation; and other activities. These 

changes will in turn affect established land uses such as grazing and existing transportation and 

recreational patterns, shifting, concentrating, or eliminating their related disturbances. 

As the amount of surface disturbance increases, the ability of a watershed to buffer high flows, filter 

water and sediment, and provide habitat decreases. Areas such as the gas fields and open areas near 

residential or recreational areas would experience greater surface disturbance than others located further 

from population centers. The extent to which these changes would be reflected in water quality is 

unknown and is dependent on several factors, including the type of and distance between disturbances; 

distance to the nearest water course; the interactions of the disturbances; the repetition of disturbing 

activities; the nature and type of the soil, slopes, and vegetative community; and others. 

There would potentially be an increase in the number of additional water and mineral production wells 

added over the life of the plan, primarily in concentrated areas in and around gas fields. By virtue of more 

water well bores into the fresh water bearing zones, there would be an inherent increase in the change of 

exposure to aquifer contamination and aquifer mixing. As the number of new and active wells decreases 

and the number of properly abandoned wells increases, the total risk may level out and slowly diminish. 

Failure to properly maintain and abandon wells would increase the potential for groundwater 

contamination. 

Pinedale RMP 4-199 
Chapter 4—Water Quality Final EIS 

Hazardous materials use and storage would most likely increase with population and resource 

development, increasing the potential for chemical contamination for both surface water and groundwater 

as the result of a chemical spill. 

Roads affect the movement of water, changing the drainage system by acting both as dams and as a 

superimposed set of ephemeral channels, redirecting water from natural drainage patterns. Proper road 

construction and maintenance can help to reduce this effect, but the alteration of the land surface required 

to create roads changes the way watersheds react to flow events. 

Undisturbed or fully reclaimed areas and unaltered water flows will have little or no deleterious effects on 

land or water conditions. Areas of disturbed soil, decreased vegetative vigor, and altered water flows may 

affect watershed health. 

Groundwater could be affected by multiple factors, including industrial, domestic, or agricultural 

activities, through withdrawal, injection, or mixing of material from different geologic layers or the 

surface. Withdrawal of groundwater could affect local groundwater flow patterns and create changes in 

quality and quantity of the remaining groundwater. The complexity of the geology in the area also 

increases the potential for mixing between aquifers along the annulus of a well or wells when one or more 

aquifers in an area are drawn upon. If aquifers are interconnected, withdrawal from or contamination of 

one well could affect others in the area. The following best management practices in this RMP, State of 

Wyoming rules and regulations, and actions set out on a field- and/or site-specific basis would help to 

reduce the likelihood of negative impacts. 

Chemical spills on the surface would have the potential to penetrate into the soil and groundwater. 

Particulate matter and chemical constituents such as nitrogen and sulfur oxides are produced year-round 

but go through complex reactions that concentrate them in initial meltwater from the snow pack. This can 

result in an initial flush of lower pH runoff in the early spring. Soils in the lower elevations of the 

planning area are primarily derived from marine deposits and tend to have a higher pH and a higher 

buffering capacity than the granitic soils associated with the surrounding mountains. This means that the 

alterations in water quality resulting from atmospheric depositions have a lower potential to create a 

negative effect in the lower elevations than in the mountainous regions. Given that the State of Wyoming 

has primacy in both air and water quality, BLM will work with the state to address both air and water 

issues. 

Cultural management actions would focus on the protection or preservation of cultural sites, which would 

improve water resources by limiting or excluding surface-disturbing activities on or near such sites. Data 

recovery excavations could affect watershed resources via surface disturbances and vegetation removal in 

the short term. Indirect effects could occur when avoidance of cultural sites directs activities to other 

areas, possibly concentrating uses and increasing impacts on local watersheds. 

Forestry practices that increase snow accumulation and alter forest floor composition could change the 

duration and timing of stream flow, which could potentially affect water quality and quantity. This could 

improve the overall watershed yield, but could also cause undesirable alterations to stream channels and 

riparian areas, such as downcutting, widening, or other types of channel degradation. Forest removal 

could also affect the nutrient balance in a watershed by increasing nitrates, carbon, and phosphorus to 

streams following deforestation. The addition of these nutrients can cause eutrophication of waters. This 

would be a minor impact. 

4-200 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Water Quality 

Designation of avoidance areas near wetland/riparian areas and other water bodies and specific limitations 

on surface-disturbing activities would serve to maintain vegetative cover and reduce runoff and nutrient 

and sediment loading. 

Lands and realty actions such as ROWs could affect water quality and watersheds. Installation of utility 

systems and other facilities would cause short-term soil erosion and sediment loading to nearby streams 

and rivers until the disturbed area was successfully reclaimed. Long-term effects would be associated 

with well pads and access routes to utility and transportation facilities. Increased channelization of surface 

runoff would occur in ruts, road ditches, and areas of compacted soil. 

Lands removed from BLM management through disposal could affect the water and watershed resources 

on adjacent public lands if the management of the vegetation, soil, and subsurface resources changes. 

Livestock grazing has the potential to impact water quality and watershed resources. Grazing could lead 

to soil compaction, stream bank instability, and a loss of vegetation, causing increased potential for 

erosion, sedimentation, and higher loads of salt and nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate in streams. 

Livestock water developments and range improvements could distribute livestock over a large landscape 

but could create concentrated use in local areas. Over the long term, these improvements would 

potentially enhance water quality by improving the stability and resiliency of wetland/riparian areas and 

protecting streamside vegetation. 

Gravel pits and other excavated mineral sites would most likely be relatively small in size and easily 

isolated hydrologically. As with other disturbances, shape, orientation, and position relative to water 

bodies and channels are determining factors. 

Mineral development and associated surface disturbances would impact water resources. Potential 

impacts include stream sedimentation, soil contamination, salt and nutrient loading, groundwater 

contamination, and augmented water flows. Much of the oil and gas development would occur in 

concentrated areas such as the Pinedale Anticline and the Jonah Field. Other areas of concentrated 

development would most likely occur over the life of this plan. Concentrated development would result in 

changes to the nature of overland flows within the development area, which will need to be addressed 

over the life of the fields and their associated roads and well pads on an individual field basis. As multiple 

fields develop, the interactions of their runoffs may also need to be considered. 

Wells would have the potential to affect groundwater quality and quantity through withdrawal, injection, 

or communication along the path of the well. Proper well sanitation, drilling, and completion methods 

could reduce these impacts but would not entirely eliminate them. 

Year-round drilling could affect watershed health and water quality, primarily through runoff and during 

the times that soils are saturated with liquid water (e.g., mud). Roads and well pads, although mostly 

protected by a gravel surface, are more vulnerable to disturbance and rutting when the soils are saturated 

with liquid water than when the soils are dry or frozen. Minor spills and accumulations that occur during 

the times of frozen soils could contribute to early spring pulses of pollutants. 

APD requirements would help minimize but not completely eliminate impacts from increased 

development. Although the potential for CBNG is low, dewatering of coalbeds or other geological 

formations could affect both quantity and quality of groundwater, because large areas would be 

potentially dewatered and the produced water would be either reinjected or otherwise managed. 

Coal gasification is an emerging technology that has a potential to create disruptions to surface water and

groundwater quality and quantity. Surface water would be affected by the amount of surface disturbance. 

Pinedale RMP 4-201 
Chapter 4—Water Quality Final EIS 

Groundwater would be affected by the changes to the aquifers. The exact nature of these potential effects 

would depend on the location of the project and the nature of the native groundwater. At the time of 

writing this document, no coal gasification projects are planned for the PFO, and the potential for such 

projects has not been established. 

Activities associated with water quality protection and clean up of undesirable events, such as those 

associated with the hydrocarbon monitoring and clean up in water wells in the Pinedale Anticline Project 

Area (PAPA), would have a positive effect on water quality. 

In areas of concentrated mineral development, there could be some changes in management in response to 

the level of development. Additional water sources could be developed from commercial water wells, 

which could help in livestock distribution. Grazing patterns could be altered, resulting in changes in 

impacts on watersheds and water quality. 

Compaction of soils, channelization of overland flows, and loss of vegetation from OHV activity would 

increase erosion, reduce revegetation rates, and decrease stream bank stability, thereby causing increased 

sedimentation and salt and nutrient loading of streams. OHV use during periods of high soil moisture, 

such as early winter and spring, would accelerate erosion and vegetation damage. 

Recreational activities that occur in proximity to water sources would impact watershed resources and 

water quality to a greater extent than those located farther from surface waters. 

Activities undertaken to preserve and improve the soil resource would have an effect on water resources. 

As soil surveys are completed in the area, vegetation and watershed projects could be completed with 

greater accuracy. 

Long-term effects of transportation and access systems on water quality and watersheds would most 

likely be associated with energy and mineral development and transport. Additional disturbance would 

also be associated with recreation. Increased erosion and sedimentation would occur from soil 

compaction, removal of vegetative cover, and channelization of surface runoff in ruts and road ditches. In 

addition, road-surfacing and dust suppressant chemicals used near riparian/wetland areas could 

contaminate water sources. Proper road maintenance and design would help to reduce the overall impact 

of the designated transportation system. 

Closing the Scab Creek WSA (7,710 acres) (Map 2-16) would limit soil erosion and sedimentation of 

surface waters in these areas. 

Improving vegetative cover in riparian areas and uplands could impact water quality and watersheds by 

reducing sedimentation of streams. Vegetation removal could result in increased stream flow energies and 

increased sediment erosion and transport and reduced water quality. Over the long term, with successful 

recovery, vegetative production could increase over pretreatment production levels, which would 

decrease erosion potential and help to protect and improve water quality. 

Management of riparian areas to achieve PFC as a minimum condition would impact water quality and 

watersheds by helping to stabilize stream banks, reduce erosion and sediment yield, promote vegetative 

cover, and enhance water quality. Watershed assessments, monitoring efforts, and implementation of 

mitigation measures would improve watersheds with sensitive baseline conditions and have a long-term 

impact on the resource. 

VRM classifications that restrict surface-disturbing activities would indirectly protect water resources. 

4-202 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Water Quality 

Fires would increase sediment loading into streams immediately after burning; however, this would 

diminish in the short term provided there is sufficient vegetative recovery. Both wildland fires and 

prescribed fires could have long-term localized impacts on water quality and quantity. Prescribed burns 

would be designed to diversify plant community composition and age structure, thereby promoting more 

vigorous vegetation growth. These plant community changes would improve soil stabilization and 

decrease erosion, resulting in decreased sediment loading to nearby streams and water sources. Changes 

in vegetation communities resulting from fuel management activities could also improve long-term water 

quality by increasing the effectiveness of the soil sponge. Restrictions placed on grazing and other landdisturbing activities until there has been sufficient vegetative recovery after treatment would reduce soil 

loss and related water quality problems. 

Fire retardants and surfactants contain chemicals that could degrade surface water quality. Careful use 

and application of these chemicals would reduce the likelihood of such events. 

Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation efforts would provide protection to water resources by 

controlling soil erosion and thereby reducing sediment loading. 

Management actions for wildlife and fisheries would, for the most part, protect riparian areas, improve 

vegetative cover, and reduce surface disturbance. Actions to improve wildlife habitat generally involve 

the protection of water sources and the promotion of diverse plant communities that are better able to 

slow and filter overland flow, reduce erosive forces, and improve water quality. This would impact water 

resources by restricting surface disturbance and reducing the potential for accelerated soil erosion. 

Impacts could occur where wildlife populations concentrate near water sources, potentially increasing 

erosion and sediment loads. 

SD/MAs would affect water quality and watershed health to the extent that they affect surface 

disturbance. 

4.15.4 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 1. 

Approximately 24,223 acres of forestland and 13,506 acres of woodland would be managed for forest 

products. The potential for short-term sediment loading to streams and rivers above acceptable levels 

would be increased by such activities. 

Use and placement of mineral supplements encourages concentrated animal activities that would cause 

soil compaction and create an area that is denuded of vegetation and saturated with salt. Keeping mineral 

supplements a minimum of 500 feet from the outer edge of wetlands or water bodies and in locations that 

encourage effective use of forage resources would encourage more widespread livestock distribution, 

which could, in turn, reduce impacts within the riparian areas. 

The proposed withdrawal of 14,540 acres from locatable minerals entry would reduce the potential for 

accelerated erosion and sediment loading in these areas. However, as no substantial development of 

locatable minerals is foreseen (see Section 4.7.2 Locatable Minerals), the likelihood of this impact is low. 

Mineral development and associated surface disturbances would impact water resources. Potential 

impacts include stream sedimentation, soil contamination, salt and nutrient loading, groundwater 

Pinedale RMP 4-203 
Chapter 4—Water Quality Final EIS 

contamination, and augmented water flows. Pipeline construction would disturb an average of 553 acres 

per year or approximately 11,063 acres over the 20-year planning period. Four years after construction, 

vegetation would be restored through reclamation and would have no long-term surface disturbance 

impact. 

The RFD scenario for oil and gas development is listed in Appendix 10. The 7,192 wells with 43,022 

acres of initial disturbance and 17,372 acres of long-term disturbance on public lands is the secondhighest level of surface disturbance of all the alternatives. Given that oil and gas development is a major 

source of disturbance, and that there is a high correlation between surface disturbance and potential 

watershed health and water quality issues, this alternative also has the second-highest potential for 

concerns regarding watershed health and water quality. 

Alternative 1 has the greatest potential OHV-related impacts. Approximately 247,250 acres, including the 

Desert General Use area, would remain designated as open OHV area. The potentially high level of 

unrestricted traffic in these areas could cause soil compaction and vegetation removal, increasing erosion 

and related impacts on water quality. 

Surface discharge of produced water could impact surface water quality with augmented flows that could 

accelerate erosion in stream channels that are not adjusted to the timing and volumes created by the 

greater energies and volumes. This could result in additions of salt and sediment from eroded soils that 

would not be detected at the initial discharge point. Discharging to larger perennial channels that have the 

capacity to accept the increased flows without degrading the channel could help reduce the volume of salt 

and sediment introduced through erosion but would not eliminate it entirely. 

Closing the Rock Creek ACEC (5,270 acres) to OHV use (Map 2-13) would limit soil erosion and 

sedimentation of surface waters in these areas. 

4.15.5 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 2. 

This alternative would result in the greatest impacts on water resources from mineral development and 

livestock grazing. The amount of surface disturbance would be greater than under all other alternatives. 

There would be a higher potential for groundwater contamination because of the greater number of wells. 

This alternative would provide greater protection to forest resources than Alternative 1. Approximately 

21,960 acres of forestland and 13,160 acres of woodland would be actively managed, and 12,346 acres of 

forestland and woodland within WSAs would be indirectly managed to restore the forest landscape to a 

more historical stocking level and would not be managed for forest products. The change in management 

emphasis would reduce surface-disturbing activities associated with the production of forest products and 

subsequent sediment loading to streams and rivers. 

Impacts resulting from livestock grazing management, soils management, SD/MA management, water 

quality and watershed management, and wildlife and fish management would be greater than under other 

alternatives. Having no minimal distance for placing mineral supplements from the edge of riparian areas 

or water bodies could create areas of concentrated grazing impacts that could destabilize channel banks, 

degrade water quality, and decrease watershed health. 

4-204 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Water Quality 

The RFD scenario for oil and gas development is listed in Appendix 10. The 7,804 wells with 46,739 

acres of initial disturbance on public lands and 18,689 acres of long-term disturbance is the highest level 

of surface disturbance of all the alternatives. Given that oil and gas is a major source of disturbance and 

that there is a high correlation between surface disturbance and potential watershed health and water 

quality issues, this alternative also has the highest potential for concerns regarding watershed health and 

water quality. 

Surface discharge of produced waters would be considered if WDEQ approval was obtained, and it could 

be demonstrated that the augmented flows would not cause significant environmental damage, as defined 

by the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health. Surface discharge activities would require additional 

monitoring of the functioning condition and water quality of the receiving water body. 

Installation of utility systems and transportation facilities would cause short-term soil erosion and 

sediment loading to nearby streams and rivers until the disturbed area was reclaimed. Long-term effects 

would be associated with well pads and access routes to utility and transportation facilities. Increased 

channelization of surface runoff would occur in ruts, road ditches, and areas of compacted soil. 

Designation of 20,640 acres as open to OHV use would create areas of concentrated impacts on 

vegetative and soil resources. This, in turn, would create local impacts on surface water resources. If 

properly managed, the presence of OHV Open areas could help control impacts over the larger planning 

area if they reduce recreational OHV activity outside of the designated areas. Water resources within the 

OHV Open areas would need to be intensively managed and impacts on them mitigated. 

At 540 acres, Alternative 2 has the smallest area of seasonal restrictions for OHV use, but it does have 

3,110 acres of special restrictions and 18,970 acres of designated roads and trails restrictions. This could 

create a different distribution of OHV-related impacts when compared to the other alternatives that have 

different designations. 

Impacts from vegetation management would be similar but slightly greater than those under Alternative 1. 

Less land would be designated as avoidance areas for surface-disturbing activities, resulting in increased 

potential for soil erosion and sedimentation of surface water sources. 

4.15.6 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 3. 

This alternative would provide the greatest protection to water resources of all the alternatives. 

Management actions, such as closing the Rock Creek ACEC to livestock grazing, would emphasize the 

enhancement and protection of watershed and riparian resources. 

Impacts on water quality and watersheds from soils and vegetation management would be similar to those 

under Alternative 1. 

Impacts resulting from fire and fuels management and forest management would be the same as those 

under Alternative 2. 

Lands and realty management actions under this alternative would provide the greatest level of protection 

to soil and vegetation resources, which would reduce soil erosion and sedimentation of water resources. 

Under this alternative, 65,750 acres would be withdrawn from locatable minerals entry, instead of 14,540 

acres as under Alternative 1. Approximately 51,210 more acres would be protected from surfacePinedale RMP 4-205 
Chapter 4—Water Quality Final EIS 

disturbing activities associated with locatable minerals activities, which would reduce the potential for 

sediment loading to nearby streams and rivers. However, as no substantial development of locatable 

minerals is foreseen (see Section 4.7.2 Locatable Minerals assumptions), the likelihood of this impact is 

low. 

The RFD scenario for oil and gas development is listed in Appendix 10. The 5,209 wells with 31,139 

acres of initial disturbance and 13,325 acres of long-term disturbance would be the lowest level of surface 

disturbance of all the alternatives. Given that oil and gas is a major source of disturbance, and that there is 

a high correlation between surface disturbance and potential watershed health and water quality issues, 

this alternative also has the lowest potential for concerns regarding watershed health and water quality. 

Closing the Rock Creek ACEC (5,270 acres) and the Scab Creek (1,350 acres) and Silver Creek (860 

acres) WSR Units to OHV use (Map 2-27) would limit soil erosion and sedimentation of surface waters in 

these areas. 

Having no open OHV areas and restricting OHV use to existing roads and trails would reduce surface 

disturbance and the associated impacts on water and vegetative resources. 

At 518,860 acres, this alternative has the largest area of seasonal restrictions for OHV use. It also has 

1,010 acres of special restrictions and 140,610 acres of designated roads and trails restrictions, which 

could help provide protection from OHV-related disturbance to the soil, vegetation, and water resources. 

No produced waters would be discharged into surface drainages. This would reduce the potential for 

channel incision, sediment transport, and water quality degradation associated with channel adjustments 

of that from Alternative 2. 

Designations of WSR would have no direct effect on water quality but could provide additional protection 

from surface disturbance. 

4.15.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 4. Overall impacts under this alternative would be between those under Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Impacts resulting from forest management would be similar to those under Alternative 2. 

Impacts from OHV management would be similar to those under Alternative 3. 

The total numbers of AUMs under this alternative are similar to those under Alternative 1. Livestock 

grazing has the potential to impact water quality and watershed resources. Heavy utilization of forage in 

riparian areas or uplands can lead to a loss of vegetation, soil compaction, and bank instability, causing 

increased erosion, sedimentation, and higher loads of salt and nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate in 

streams. 

Impacts from placement of mineral supplements a minimum of 500 feet from wetlands and water bodies 

would be similar to Alternative 1. 

Under this alternative, 13,770 acres would be withdrawn from locatable minerals entry, instead of 14,540 

acres as under Alternative 1. Approximately 770 fewer acres would be protected from surface-disturbing 

activities associated with locatable minerals activities, which would increase the potential for sediment 

4-206 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Water Quality 

loading to nearby streams and rivers. However, as no substantial development of locatable minerals is 

foreseen (see Assumptions in Section 4.7.2, Locatable Minerals), the likelihood of this impact is low. 

The RFD scenario for oil and gas development is listed in Appendix 10. The 7,136 wells, with 42,180 

acres of initial disturbance and 17,330 acres of long-term disturbance, involves slightly less surface 

disturbance than under Alternative 1. Given that oil and gas is a major source of disturbance and that 

there is a high correlation between surface disturbance and potential watershed health and water quality 

issues, Alternative 4 also has slightly less potential for concerns regarding watershed health and water 

quality than Alternative 1. 

No produced waters would be discharged into surface drainages. This would reduce the potential for 

channel incision, sediment transport, and water quality degradation associated with channel adjustments 

from that of Alternative 2. 

Closing the Rock Creek ACEC (4,960 acres) and the Scab Creek (1,350 acres) and Silver Creek (860 

acres) WSR Units to OHV use (Map 2-35) would limit soil erosion and sedimentation of surface waters in 

these areas. 

At 518,860 acres, Alternative 4 has the same extent of seasonal restrictions for OHV use as Alternative 3. 

It also has 7,230acres of special restrictions and 139,000 acres of designated roads and trails restrictions, 

which could help provide protection from OHV-related disturbance to the soil, vegetation, and water 

resources. 

Impacts resulting from vegetation management actions would be the same as those under Alternative 1. 

Improving vegetative cover in riparian areas and uplands could impact water quality and watersheds by 

reducing sedimentation of streams. Vegetation removal could result in increased stream flow that forces 

stream channels to readjust their width and depth to accommodate the larger flows. Over the long term, 

with successful recovery, vegetative production could increase over pretreatment production levels, which 

would decrease erosion potential and help to protect and improve water quality. 

Pinedale RMP 4-207 
Chapter 4—Wildland Fire Final EIS 

4.16 WILDLAND FIRE AND FUELS 

This section presents potential impacts on fire and fuels management from management actions for other 

resource programs. Existing conditions concerning fire and fuels management are described in Chapter 3 

(Section 3.16). 

4.16.1 Assumptions 

The analysis was based on the following assumptions: 

• A direct relationship exists between density of human use within the planning area and the 

frequency of human-caused fires. 

• A direct relationship exists between fuel loads (standing and nonstanding vegetation) and 

potential fire size and intensity. 

• Proper application of prescribed fire (as well as mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments) 

can reduce the fire hazards presented by an accumulation of fuel. The application of prescribed 

fire and the effects of prescribed fire on resource values will be considered in this section. 

• There is an average of approximately two fires per year: one human-caused fire and one from 

natural ignition (lightning). Half of natural ignitions are in forested areas and half in 

sagebrush/grass areas. 

• Approximately 35% of years have no fire occurrence. 

• About 70% of all fires burn less than 2 acres; 15% burn between 3 and 100 acres; and 15% burn 

100 acres or more. 

• Historically, there has been one prescribed fire every 2 years for 870 acres. 

• Fuel treatments would continue within the range of current projections. 

• WUI funding will be more stable than non-WUI funding. 

• A long-term stewardship contract with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is being developed. 

This will be a 10-year-long project overlapping with forestry. 

• National direction will continue to focus on cost containment for large fire activities and 

emphasize appropriate management response (AMR). 

• Fire management budgets will be cyclical, with a 5-year downturn that began in 2006. 

4.16.2 Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources within the 

planning area, review of existing literature, and information from other agencies. Spatial analysis was 

conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 computer software. Effects are quantified where possible. In 

the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes described 

using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate. Risk assessment and mitigation 

4-208 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildland Fire 

strategies (RAMS) have been used in the planning area to quantify risk ratings for WUI areas and 

catastrophic fire potential for wildland fuels. 

4.16.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Impacts on fire management are not anticipated as a result of implementing management actions for the 

following resources and resource uses: lands and realty, paleontology and natural history, and 

transportation and access management. 

The potential for wildland fires within the planning area to seriously damage sensitive resource values is 

considered to be low in areas proposed for WFURB as well as in areas considered for appropriate 

management response. 

Management of cultural resources could affect fire management by placing restrictions on wildland fire 

suppression activities. Protections afforded to cultural resources and surrounding areas (e.g., identified 

historical trails, buildings, cultural sites) include fire suppression related limitations and restrictions, 

which could affect the ability of firefighters to protect these sites and surrounding areas during wildland 

fire suppression activities. 

Timber harvest would affect the fuel profile and subsequent fire behavior. The primary stand attributes 

that influence crown fire initiation and spread are surface fuel loading, crown base height, and canopy 

bulk density. At a minimum, timber harvests planned under this alternative would affect canopy bulk 

density, which in turn affects canopy fire spread. After a timber harvest, a fire may still transition into the 

crown of an individual tree; however, the reduced crown bulk density may inhibit the movement of the 

fire through the canopy. Slash that is left onsite from harvesting and fuel reduction projects could increase 

surface fire intensity; however, if slash were treated by piling, lopping, and burning, the effect could be 

partially mitigated. Forest health initiatives that favor aspen and reduce conifer encroachment on aspen 

would aid in fire suppression efforts and reduce the potential for crown fires. 

Forest health objectives would reduce the amount of dead and downed forest fuels attributed to insects, 

disease, and overgrowth, which could reduce the frequency and intensity of fire. Forest management 

actions to reduce conifer encroachment could also reduce the frequency and intensity of fire and facilitate 

fire suppression efforts. 

Livestock grazing would affect fire management through the reduction of fine fuels, which would reduce 

the capacity for wildland fire to spread. Decreasing the probability of fire spread through reduction of fine 

fuels by livestock grazing would provide more time for the accumulation of larger fuel sources (e.g., 

shrub vegetation) between fires. 

Mineral resource development would increase management requirements for fire suppression. Impacts of 

fluid mineral resource development on fire management could include the introduction of additional 

ignition sources, barriers, or impediments to fire areas, and increased fire risk potential as a result of 

increased access for recreational and other public land users. These impacts would generally be the same 

for leasable, locatable, and salable minerals. 

Mineral resource development activity can also affect fire management by providing increased overall 

accessibility to remote areas and the presence of emergency equipment and manpower in remote areas. 

The presence of minerals personnel can also increase the likelihood that fires can be spotted and 

potentially controlled quickly.

Pinedale RMP 4-209 
Chapter 4—Wildland Fire Final EIS 

Recreational activities such as camping and backpacking have the potential to increase fire frequency by 

directly increasing the number of ignition sources (e.g., campfires and catalytic converters). When 

conditions warrant, fire prohibitions (not allowing open campfires) would reduce the likelihood of 

accidental human-caused wildland fires. Public service announcements and newspaper articles in 

conjunction with posting the prohibitions at recreational sites would help the public understand and 

comply with fire regulations. 

OHV use could directly impact fire management. Catalytic converters on vehicles could start fires when 

in contact with dry vegetation. OHV use frequently occurs in remote areas accessed by unimproved 

vehicle trails, potentially causing wildland fires in areas not readily accessible to conventional fire 

equipment. 

The primary benefit that would be derived from fire suppression designations is increased efficiency of 

fire suppression activities. However, large, damaging fires can occur. The potential effects on sensitive 

resource values from such an occurrence have been considered in the Western Zone Fire Management 

Plan (2004). Some of the values to be considered are cultural resources, crucial big game winter range, 

high-priority watersheds, fragile soils, oil and gas fields, air quality, and high-value scenic areas. 

Fuel reduction projects, especially in WUI areas, would impact fire suppression activities. Removal of 

fuels helps slow the spread of fire, enabling firefighters to more easily keep fires under control and 

contained. 

Wildlife management actions would impact the use of fuels management. Some impacts may be through 

restrictions aimed at protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat, such as seasonality, treatment size, or 

treatment type. Another effect could be the use of prescribed fire to enhance wildlife habitat, which would 

alter vegetation and fuel loading to decrease the risk of catastrophic wildland fire in the area treated. 

WSA IMP would limit the use of motorized fire suppression equipment. Fire suppression in the WSAs 

would be more difficult. Fires in the WSAs could grow to the extent that they are difficult to contain at 

the WSA boundary. 

4.16.4 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 1. 

Forest management under this alternative is divided into four categories, ranging from intensive 

commercial management to no management, depending on the area identified. Forest health is not 

identified, nor are any fuel reduction goals. The lack of these elements could affect fire management by 

increasing fuel loadings and the intensity of wildland fire. 

Fire management under this alternative would allow for prescribed fire for multiple objectives as well as 

managing natural ignitions as WFURB. Suppression actions would be undertaken under an “appropriate 

suppression response” emphasizing values at risk. 

WSA IMP would limit the use of fire suppression equipment to hand tools to reduce surface disturbance. 

Vehicle access would also be limited by OHV restrictions. This would increase the risk of large, 

uncontrolled wildland fires, the risk to firefighters, and fire suppression costs. 

4-210 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildland Fire 

As a result of vegetation management actions, healthy, diverse vegetation communities promoting mosaic 

vegetation patterns could slow the spread of fires and reduce their size and intensity. Management actions 

aimed at reducing the spread of invasive species under Alternative 1 would aid fire suppression activities 

and fuel reduction, because invasive species can increase the frequency and severity of fires. 

4.16.5 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated under 

Alternative 2. 

Increased total surface disturbance and distribution of oil and gas development would affect the fire 

management program by increasing the amount and distribution of industrial interface in the WUI. 

Protecting this infrastructure would require a more intensive mechanical and chemical fuels treatment 

program. It would also reduce the options available in the AMR for the firefighters and reduce the amount 

of acreage that would be available for prescribed fire. 

Forest management would also impact fire management. Forest and woodland stands not identified as old 

growth would be available for commercial use. The commercial use of these stands would not necessarily 

increase their resilience to wildland fire, potentially increasing the risk for catastrophic wildland fire. 

Additional or increased OHV use, in conjunction with additional recreational facilities, would increase 

the potential for wildland fire by increasing the number of ignition sources. 

Fire management under this alternative would allow for prescribed fire for multiple objectives. 

Suppression actions would be undertaken under an “appropriate suppression response” emphasizing 

values at risk. 

4.16.6 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 3. 

The oil and gas impacts on fire management would be decreased under this alternative. The acreages 

under this alternative would reduce the amount of fuels treatments necessary to protect the oil and gas 

infrastructure and would allow potentially larger landscape-scale prescribed fire treatments. It would also 

decrease the constraints in the AMR that higher levels of oil and gas would impose. 

Impacts from the forestry program would affect fire management. The emphasis on managing all forests 

and woodlands to bring them to pre-suppression composition, structure, and function would in the long 

term decrease the potential for catastrophic fire and increase the options for fire management under the 

AMR. Emphasis on restoring aspen stands to their historic range of variability would create natural fuel 

breaks on the landscape, further increasing the resilience of the vegetation to wildland fire. Aggressively 

managing for forest health would also make the forested stands more resilient and resistant to wildland 

fire, creating more opportunities for the use of WFURB. 

Impacts from livestock grazing management would affect fire management. The establishment of reserve 

common allotments would facilitate prescribed burns in areas by creating more flexibility within the 

permittee’s grazing system, allowing for rest before or after a prescribed fire to meet the objectives of the 

treatment. 

Pinedale RMP 4-211 
Chapter 4—Wildland Fire Final EIS 

Subjecting fire suppression vehicles to OHV restrictions would severely hamper firefighting efforts. 

Dozer lines could not be constructed. Trucks could not drive crosscountry to spray water. Fire 

suppression activities would be limited to hand lines, spraying water from roads, and air drops. Larger 

fires would likely result. 

4.16.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 4. 

Oil and gas development would impact fire management. The proposed disturbance would be the same as 

under Alternative 1. 

Impacts from OHV management and vegetation management would be the same as those under 

Alternative 3. 

Impacts resulting from forest management would be the same as those under Alternative 2. 

4-212 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

4.17 WILDLIFE AND FISH HABITAT 

This section presents potential impacts on wildlife and fisheries from management actions for other 

resource programs. Existing conditions concerning wildlife and fisheries are described in Chapter 3. 

Wildlife populations fluctuate, sometimes widely, in response to natural factors such as cycles in the 

abundance of prey base or extremes in seasonal weather (e.g., severe winters). It is often difficult to 

discern whether impacts on wildlife result from any specific management action or from population 

changes caused by natural factors. Changes to or stressors (e.g., increased human presence and noise) on 

habitat components such as vegetation, water, soil, or air are most likely to cause direct and indirect 

effects on wildlife and fish. 

4.17.1 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• The quality and quantity of winter ranges are generally considered to be the limiting factors on 

big game populations in the planning area. The ability of these areas to support wintering 

populations is a major factor in determining yearlong population levels. 

• Significant modifications to habitat suitability can impact the survivability and viability of 

populations (e.g., higher winter mortality, reduced reproductive success). 

• Crucial winter ranges, transitional ranges, and parturition areas are critically important wildlife 

habitat. 

• Fish and wildlife populations would continue to be managed by WGFD. BLM would continue to 

manage wildlife habitat. Big game habitat would be managed in coordination with WGFD herd 

objectives and the Strategic Habitat Plan. 

• Natural variability in wildlife health, population levels, and habitat conditions would continue. 

Periods of mild or severe weather as well as outbreaks of wildlife disease or insects/diseases that 

impact habitat (e.g., mountain pine beetle, blister rust, mistletoe, and bleeding rust) could impact 

wildlife population levels. 

• The WGFD may adjust herd objectives in response to these periodic fluctuations in population 

levels. Occasional changes in movement patterns or habitat preference may occur in response to 

habitat changes or levels of human disturbance. 

• USFWS may designate additional wildlife species as T&E as additional data are collected and 

evaluated. These species would be managed in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and 

as directed by decisions in the alternatives. 

• BLM is responsible for impacts occurring from public land management activities and would 

coordinate fish and wildlife habitat management activities on public lands with the WGFD. BLM 

is not restricted from making any reasonable decision within the framework of multiple use 

management and applicable laws as a result of this coordination. 

• Management of streams toward their potential natural condition would generally improve habitats 

for both native and introduced coldwater fishes, such as trout and sculpin. 

Pinedale RMP 4-213 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

• Consideration of aquatic habitat conditions when conducting BLM assessments, such as PFC and 

the Standards for Rangeland Health (USDI, BLM 1997), would help to identify areas for stream 

habitat management and watershed management efforts. 

• The health of fisheries within the planning area is directly related to the overall health and 

functional capabilities of riparian/wetland resources, which in turn reflect watershed health. 

• Any activities that affect the ecological condition of the watershed and its vegetative cover would 

directly or indirectly affect the aquatic environment. The degree of impact attributed to any one 

disturbance or series of disturbances is influenced by location within the watershed, time and 

degree of disturbance, existing vegetation, and hydrologic condition. 

• As riparian systems adjust in response to the removal of vegetation or changes in hydrologic 

conditions, the availability of habitats required to fulfill the life history requirements of fish 

populations is likely to be affected. 

• Supporting industrial linear infrastructure such as roads and pipeline corridors is likely under all 

alternatives. 

4.17.2 Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources and 

appropriate data within the planning area, review of existing literature, and professional judgment of 

experts within and outside BLM. Spatial data analysis was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 

computer software. Effects are quantified where possible. In the absence of quantitative data, best 

professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes described using ranges of potential impacts or in 

qualitative terms if appropriate. 

4.17.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

As acreages of surface disturbance and human activity levels increase, the quality and quantity of wildlife 

habitats likely will be reduced. Habitat fragmentation occurs when a contiguous habitat is intersected, 

divided, or segmented by disturbing activities. Fragmentation causes a reduction in usable ranges and the 

isolation of smaller, less mobile species; a loss of genetic integrity within species or populations; and an 

increase in abundance of habitat generalists that are characteristic of disturbed environments (i.e., 

competitors, predators, and parasites) (Harris 1984). Displaced wildlife tend to use lower quality habitats 

or compete with existing herds and livestock for forage and use private lands to a greater extent. Density 

dependency thresholds of suitable habitats for these species could be met, which ultimately could 

decrease herd size and genetic variability and increase disease frequency. 

Working with the state to maintain Wyoming State air quality standards would aid in reducing or limiting 

acidification of waters within the planning area. 

Authorized excavation of cultural sites and cultural inventories would cause localized, short-term 

disruption to wildlife’s use of the excavation site. If the excavation would occur in sensitive or 

endangered species habitat, or if cultural sites were found at proposed locations of wildlife habitat 

enhancement projects, the projects would be re-evaluated, subject to site-specific adjustments, and 

potentially redesigned. 

4-214 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

Impacts resulting from forest management activities and associated infrastructure would include habitat 

loss, fragmentation, avoidance or displacement of animals from management areas, noise disturbance, and 

increased vehicle traffic (MDFWP 1985). 

Forest management practices would change the seral stage of the affected stands. Many forest 

management practices are designed to alter or set back the seral stage of the forest community. Harvest of 

late-seral or climax forest stands would change the structure and species makeup of timber stands to favor 

early-seral species and address morbidity in stands, disease, and risk of large fires. These activities could 

potentially increase species diversity and richness, depending on different wildlife species’ habitat 

requirements. This would affect all wildlife species dependent on those forest seral stages. Properly 

mitigated commercial timber harvests could improve big game habitat in the long term. Timber 

management activities would improve big game habitat by improving forest age class diversity and 

distribution, edge effect, and forage community diversity. 

Potential short-term impacts on elk from forest management include loss of security and calving cover 

and displacement of elk to other portions of the habitat. Displacement of elk has been detected as far as 4 

miles from the area of summer logging activity. Long-term impacts on security cover in the areas would 

also be caused by timber harvest. Timber harvest practices could lead to increased human presence, 

wildlife harassment, and increased hunting success in elk habitats. 

Timber management activities could have impacts on Canada lynx by removing forest cover for foraging 

and denning habitat needed for lynx and prey. Snowshoe hares may reach their highest densities in young, 

dense coniferous or coniferous-deciduous forests, or mature forests with a dense understory of shrubs, 

aspen, and/or conifers. Lynx natal dens generally occur in areas with large quantities of coarse woody 

debris, such as blowdown and root wads, which typically occur in mature forests or in regenerating 

stands. Timber harvest would result in an increase in roads, facilitating snowmobile and other human uses 

in the winter and thereby increasing access into lynx habitat (LCAS 2000). Maintenance of old growth 

forest (especially in the mixed conifer/spruce fir and aspen/spruce fir) stands is critical in maintaining the 

historic snowshoe hare population levels and therefore the continued presence of Canada lynx in the 

planning area. 

In all timber management activities, the practice of leaving dead and dying trees, trees with heart rot, and 

other standing unmerchantable timber would meet the ecological needs of numerous species, including 

woodpeckers, owls, and many neotropical bird migrants. 

Access roads for logging operations could affect aquatic habitats by concentrating stream flow, increasing 

erosion rates, and fragmenting habitats. Increased spring runoff could increase erosion. Removal of forest 

understory vegetative cover could alter aquatic habitats by changing the time to peak discharge following 

precipitation events and increasing sediment transport from upland sources to the stream channel. This 

also impacts a forage component required for many forest-dwelling species. 

Impacts on wildlife and fisheries from lands and realty management would be dependent on the 

placement of ROWs and the location of realty actions in relation to critical wildlife habitat, and on the 

success of reclamation and mitigation on disturbed lands. The impacts on wildlife and fish habitat would 

vary with the specific type and location of the requested ROW. Some actions such as construction of 

pipelines, buried fiber-optic lines, and other subsurface actions likely would have short-term impact, 

because proper reclamation should restore some level of habitat function in these areas that could be used 

by wildlife. Because of the long time frames required for disturbed sites to return to predisturbance 

vegetation cover or the redisturbance of a ROW corridor, some impacts would be long term. 

Aboveground ROW actions, such as communication sites and power lines, would have long-term 

Pinedale RMP 4-215 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

impacts. These types of permanent structures are particularly hazardous to avian wildlife because of the 

potential for collision or electrocution. 

Habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and species displacement from approved linear features (e.g., 

power lines, roads, pipelines) and other permitted facilities would occur. Linear ROW features could 

fragment habitat and disturb vegetation; increase erosion; and degrade the quality of riparian areas, 

watersheds, and habitats if features cannot be avoided or mitigated. Impacts from buried pipeline 

construction could last for 30–40 years or more, depending on the time required for full reclamation of 

pre-disturbance vegetation, including sagebrush. The length of time of wildlife displacement would 

depend on the timeliness and effectiveness of reclamation efforts. Impacts from ROW-approved actions 

such as power lines, communication sites, and wind turbines, would include increased injury and death to 

bats, raptors, and other migratory birds as a result of collisions. 

Reclamation on many pipeline corridors is difficult when uncontrolled livestock grazing and repeated 

disturbance occurs. When these situations are encountered, disturbances from pipelines would result in 

long-term impacts on wildlife habitats. Forage loss and increased human activity from roads and linear 

features could result in reduced wildlife health (when wildlife is displaced into a lower quality habitat), 

modifications in population distribution or numbers, possible habitat abandonment, or increased 

competition with generalist species. 

Fisheries are directly affected by the condition of riparian areas. Surface-disturbing activities, such as 

ROWs for linear actions (e.g., pipelines, roads, and utilities) and construction of well pads and other 

facilities, could adversely affect watershed resources, riparian areas, and fisheries. Road construction near 

streams could adversely impact fish habitats by altering the hydrology and the associated riparian zone, 

causing erosion, loss of aquatic and riparian vegetation, and increased sedimentation. RMP stipulations 

and other site-specific mitigation measures to address timing and extent of surface-disturbing activities in 

or near riparian areas and streams would reduce these impacts. 

Sedimentation of streams from linear stream crossings and increased sedimentation from disturbed land 

would impact fisheries by reducing habitat complexity. Sedimentation reduces fish spawning potential 

and results in a lower diversity of prey organisms. Increased turbidity also results from increased 

sediment input, which decreases light penetration, inhibits instream plant growth and visual predation by 

fish, and could increase water temperature. The increase in nutrient loads associated with increased 

sediment inputs would increase plant production above natural levels, which would degrade habitat and 

decrease oxygen levels. In addition, disturbance of the stream bank caused by linear crossings could 

create bank instability and thereby alter stream flow and destroy pool-riffle formations necessary for fish 

survival. Proper design of linear crossings and BMPs would minimize these impacts. 

The impacts from livestock grazing on fish and wildlife habitat would include competition for forage and 

water and habitat use and alteration. Livestock driveways impact wildlife habitats because of reduced 

vegetation and compaction of soils. Stock driveways tend to concentrate high levels of livestock use that 

can cause significant degradation (e.g., near-complete removal of vegetation, soil compaction). These 

areas no longer provide forage or shelter but could be used as wildlife movement corridors. Late-season 

grazing can remove residual vegetation that would be necessary on big game winter ranges and provide 

important nesting cover for greater sage-grouse in the following spring. Livestock grazing can also 

enhance forage and brood-rearing conditions for wildlife species. Regrowth areas previously used by 

cattle could be favored because of the resultant increase in forage palatability. 

Placement of water development projects for livestock in certain areas could lead to a redistribution of 

livestock on crucial winter ranges not previously used by livestock. This could lead to increased 

competition between livestock and big game for forage on crucial winter ranges. Water developments that 

4-216 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

are maintained throughout the year can be beneficial to wildlife where other water sources are limited. 

Properly distributed water developments can be used to facilitate rotational or other livestock grazing 

systems to improve rangeland health and also provide better forage for wildlife. Well-designed water 

developments (reservoirs) and associated riparian vegetation create nesting, feeding, and brood-rearing 

habitat for waterfowl, greater sage-grouse, and other migratory birds. The development of water sources 

in dry regions would allow wildlife use to expand into habitats that previously were used only seasonally. 

Dispersion of wildlife to access water sources reduces potential impacts from predators; however, 

livestock use around water sources could also alter vegetative diversity found in these mesic areas, 

potentially reducing habitat quality for a wide variety of wildlife species, including sage-grouse. 

Proper grazing practices in a sagebrush/bunchgrass plant community would provide proper understory 

cover for nesting and brood rearing to persist. Overgrazing could change the bunchgrass community to a 

less desirable rhizomatous grass community that does not provide sufficient understory for nesting cover 

and brood rearing. There are many complexities to this issue, including management history, grazing 

intensity, the amount of rest, rotation strategies, and the type of livestock involved (Kuipers 2004). Sagegrouse nesting and early brood-rearing periods are the most vulnerable to livestock grazing influences 

(Beck and Mitchell 2000), primarily due to requirements for tall and abundant understories of residual 

grasses, new grasses, forbs, and litter within sagebrush habitats (Gregg et al. 1994; Heath et al. 1997 and 

1998; Holloran 1999; Lyon 2000; Kuipers 2004). 

Livestock grazing management could adversely impact stream processes and fish habitats, including the 

loss of stabilizing riparian vegetation, which can lead to stream instability and an associated loss of 

habitat complexity; the loss of shading vegetation, which can lead to elevated stream temperatures, 

increased sediment delivery, and loss of stream channel complexity provided by fluvial processes and 

woody debris. The degree of adverse impact, if any, would depend on livestock grazing timing and 

intensity, site characteristics, and species habitat requirements (Armour et al. 1991; White 1996; Rinne 

1999). Early spring and late summer are periods when livestock are most apt to utilize shrubs, thereby 

reducing their availability to wildlife. Browsing of shrubs could reduce their competitive ability against 

grasses, which could increase abundance and vigor of the herbaceous understory. 

Livestock grazing in the fall or early spring would remove the residual herbaceous understory, reducing 

its vertical structure, which reduces the visual security for upland nesting birds. This could lead to 

increased predation and lower nesting success. Removal of residual cover could also hasten spring greenup of the herbaceous understory, providing quality forage for wildlife coming out of stressful winter 

conditions. 

Livestock range improvements designed to alter grazing distribution and use of pastures, such as fences 

and water developments, would affect wildlife. Big game species use mineral supplements placed for 

livestock use. Placement of mineral supplements in sage-grouse strutting areas could degrade sage-grouse 

nesting habitat. However, livestock fences create travel barriers, create stress, and could lead to decreased 

reproduction success (especially when constructed in big game migration corridors) as well as death from 

entanglement. 

Because of the large amount of oil and gas reserves and existing leases in the planning area, loss of 

important habitat could occur throughout the planning area, depending on the economic feasibility of 

development and fluctuations in market price. Although 43 CFR 3161.2 directs BLM to ensure that “all 

operations are conducted in a manner which protects other natural resources and the environmental 

quality,” it also contains many scenarios in which operators may continue to conduct activities without 

requesting exceptions. Many studies have shown that these actions involving increased human presence 

has negatively affected wildlife populations such as mule deer and sage grouse. 

Pinedale RMP 4-217 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

The primary impacts on wildlife species (especially big game) from minerals development within the 

planning area are the reduction in usable wildlife habitat and disruption of migration corridors that link 

crucial habitats (winter range) and parturition areas. Reductions would be particularly severe in areas with 

continuous surface disturbance. As discussed by Bartmann et al. (1992), crowding may have a densitydependent impact of reducing animal survival and damaging resources. 

The impacts of human activity, including those related to minerals development and recreation, on big 

game crucial winter range include loss of habitat and forage occurring from surface-disturbing activities 

at any time of the year, and displacement and physiological stress as a result of human presence and 

activity during the winter. Human disturbance of big game, whether from harassment or by accident, 

results in increased energy costs to the alerted animal (Bromley 1985). The disturbed big game animal 

incurs a physiological cost either through excitement (preparation for exertion) or locomotion. A fleeing 

or displaced animal incurs additional costs through loss of food intake and potential displacement to 

poorer (lower) quality habitat. If the disturbance becomes chronic or continuous, these costs can result in 

reduced animal fitness and reproductive potential (Geist 1978). Phillips and Alldredge (2000) and Shively 

et al. (2005) demonstrated a 30% reduction in elk calf recruitment resulting from an activity as benign as 

simulated recreational hiking imposed during the calving season. 

Large seismic projects, particularly the use of thumper trucks, negatively impact sagebrush habitats, 

because they provide trails for increased predator access; fragment sage-grouse habitats; crush live 

sagebrush and understory grass and forb species; and may potentially disrupt breeding and nesting 

activities. 

As fields such as Jonah Field are developed to a 5-acre and 10-acre spacing, the habitat functionality 

would primarily be suitable only for generalist species that can still function in habitat that is highly 

fragmented and has a high level of human presence and noise. As reclamation and habitat succession 

change the habitat type, the species with more specific micro-habitat requirements could reinhabit these 

areas over time if populations were able to be maintained within dispersal distances for that species, and 

assuming that human-caused disturbances have ceased. In the Anticline Field, the assumption is that the 

120-acre (from vertical wells) to 160-acre (from multi-well pads) spacing would maintain a greater 

expanse of habitat integrity because of the increased use of multi-well pads. Human presence and noise 

could still cause some species to abandon these areas because of their specific habitat requirements and 

intolerance of disturbance (e.g., sage-grouse). 

As densities of wells, roads, and facilities increase, habitats within and near well fields become 

progressively less effective until most animals no longer use these areas. Although vegetation and other 

natural features may remain physically unaltered, wildlife make proportionately less use of areas near oil 

and gas facilities. Animals that remain within the affected zones are subjected to increased physiological 

stress. This avoidance and stress response impairs habitat function by reducing the capability of wildlife 

to use the habitat effectively. In addition, physical or psychological barriers lead to fragmentation of 

habitats, further limiting the availability of effective habitat. An area of intensive activity or construction 

becomes a barrier when animals cannot or will not cross it to access otherwise suitable habitat. These 

impacts are especially problematic when they occur within limiting habitat components such as crucial 

winter ranges and reproductive habitats (WGFD 2004a). 

In all other oil and gas developments (Appendix 10), the assumption is that there would be between 40- 

and 60-acre spacing between well bores. Many of these areas such as the Big Piney/LaBarge oil and gas 

fields have been drilling for more than 50 years, and some of their spacing is much smaller than 40 acres 

(because the CAP Environmental Assessment [EA] does not have a well spacing requirement). The Big 

Piney mule deer herd has likely experienced a level of disturbance that has caused it to move away from 

development but not completely abandon its winter range, similar to the findings of Sawyer (2006). 

4-218 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

However, there is no scientific information that supports that the mule deer herd would maintain its 

occupancy in these areas if oil and gas activities increase over time. The elk herds in the Wyoming Range 

have not experienced a high level of drilling activity or presence in their crucial winter range. Past 

research has shown that elk were displaced out of the high-quality winter ranges during drilling and 

construction activities and did not return until those activities were completed. Continued development in 

these areas could lead to not only native winter range abandonment in the Wyoming Range but also a loss 

of high-quality forage until reclamation has successfully returned these ranges to elk habitat. 

Forage loss and increased human activity from surface disturbance and other disruptive activities would 

result in reduced wildlife species diversity, modifications in population distribution or numbers, or 

possible habitat abandonment. Reclaimed areas would be more vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds 

and would not initially provide the same level of habitat function, forage, or cover that the original area 

provided. Population reductions in the planning area could also be manifested in other areas, particularly 

where big game herd areas include lands both within and outside the planning area. Winter range, 

transitional range, and migration route impacts could impact populations on the forest, the Little Colorado 

Desert, and as far away as Grand Teton National Park. 

In 2004, the WGFD initiated a statewide monitoring protocol for key big game habitat ranges. Eleven 

transects have been monitored in various shrub habitats and three in true mountain mahogany habitats. 

Analysis of the past 2 years of data sets indicates that these shrub communities have very few young 

plants and are being browsed heavily. These plants are not healthy and vigorous, which limits their 

productivity and may be the result of several contiguous years of drought (Scribner 2006). 

Annual precipitation plays an important role in plant vigor and nutrient loading for big game species. A 

deficiency in vegetation nutrients significantly impacts body condition during female ungulate gestation 

and lactation. Lomas and Bender (2007) determined fawn survival increased roughly 1.3 times and 8.8 

times in New Mexico for each 1 centimeter (cm) increase in annual and summer precipitation, 

respectively. In addition, each percent of increased body fat in does increased fawn survival by 20 times. 

However, increased precipitation alone allows only small increases in population growth. For large 

increases, vegetation enhancements are required to increase female body condition and fawn nutrition to 

sufficiently produce high population increases (Lomas and Bender 2007). 

Increasing forage amount will not likely improve energy balance in deer, unless those increases are 

accompanied by changes in the availability or nutritional value of forage. Small improvements in the 

condition of animals at the beginning of winter, or enhancements in forage quality that provide deer 

greater energy intake during winter, are likely to pay large dividends in reducing winter mortality (Hobbs 

1989). Habitat improvements must be accompanied by interseeding and balanced with an appropriate 

grazing regime to maintain forage quality, especially in areas that may be of lesser value than the historic 

ranges. 

Mule deer exhibit a stress response to disturbances associated with noise and activity up to 0.29 mile from 

the source (Freddy et. al. 1986). It is estimated that well development would reduce habitat effectiveness 

for mule deer within 170 acres surrounding each well pad. 

The Sublette Mule Deer Study was conducted between 1998 and 2003 by West Inc.; its goal was to 

determine whether natural gas development affected habitat selection patterns and ultimately the 

distribution of wintering mule deer in western Wyoming. Following 1 year of development, 17% of the 

study area classified as high use before development had changed to medium-low or low use, and by year 

3 of development, 40% of the study area classified as low use before development had changed to 

medium-high or high use areas. 

Pinedale RMP 4-219 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

Further, research conducted by Sawyer et al. (2006) suggests winter habitat selection and distribution 

patterns of mule deer were affected by well pad development. Changes in habitat selection by mule deer 

appeared to be immediate (i.e., year 1 of development), and through 3 years of development, no evidence 

was found that suggested mule deer acclimated or habituated to well pads. Rather, mule deer had a 

progressively higher probability of using areas farther away from well pads as development progressed; 

however, this occurred only up to a certain distance. These results reflect the ability of mule deer to avoid 

localized disturbances and habitat perturbations without completely abandoning their home ranges 

(Sawyer et al. 2006). These results were collected during the Questar winter drilling as well as the 

Anschutz, Shell, and Ultra winter drilling programs to indicate the effects of drilling during the crucial 

wintering periods. Thus far in the study, the results indicate that mule deer use patterns are changing not 

only because of changes in timing restrictions for surface-disturbing and human disruptive activities, but 

are a culmination of habitat fragmentation, year-round human disruptive activities, and placement of 

development. 

Natural gas development on the Mesa has displaced mule deer to less suitable habitats. Within 3 years, 

the highest probability of mule deer use was 3.7 kilometers (km) away from well pads. The research 

suggests that winter habitat selection and distribution patterns of mule deer are affected by well pad 

development and that changes in habitat selection appear to be rapid. Mule deer progressively used areas 

farther from well pads as development progressed, but only moved a defined distance, suggesting home 

ranges would not be completely abandoned (Sawyer et al. 2006). Further, Sawyer et al. suggest that 

reducing the level of human activity during the production and development phases as well as limiting 

public access and developing road management strategies would reduce disturbances to wintering mule 

deer. 

Disturbance may contribute to reduced reproductive rates due to reduced feeding, feeding in poor quality 

habitats, or feeding on rough forage (Gillin and Irwin 1985). Research conducted by Gillin and Irwin 

(1985) in the Bridger-Teton National Forest found seismic activity caused displacement of elk within 

home ranges by an average of three-quarters of a mile and into dense (greater than 70% canopy) forests 

with reduced forage. Displacement was observed to be rapid on spring range when calves were less than 1 

month of age. Oil and gas exploration and field development in the Riley Ridge Project area was found to 

change elk distribution after drilling one well; after three wells were drilled, elk abandoned 6,000 acres of 

winter range. After drilling ceased, elk returned to the area. Further drilling activities in elk calving areas 

also caused elk to temporarily abandon the Lake Ridge calving area. Elk abandoned the Snider Basin 

calving area in 1984 and returned a year later when drilling activity left the basin. Elk have until now 

been able to find suitable, undisturbed habitats away from human activity; however, continued 

development could lead to abandonment of their historic ranges (in the last native winter foraging area on 

the Wyoming Range) (Johnson 1985). A study conducted by Hayden-Wing Associates (1990) found a 

similar response in the Graphite Hollow/Rock Creek Winter Range where elk moved 0.5 to 2.4 miles 

away from a well site. 

Sawyer et al. (2007) indicate that the effectiveness of elk habitat in forested regions declines when road 

densities exceed 0.62 km/km2

 (1 mile/mile2). Behavioral response to traffic is influenced by topography 

and forest canopy adjacent to roads, and in some cases, road closures have been shown to decrease elk 

movements and increase survival. 

WGFD estimates that 170 acres surrounding each well pad is the minimum area in which impacts on 

pronghorn would occur (WGFD 2004a). The greater mobility and adaptability of this species to human 

activity and disturbed areas likely would prevent long-term population impacts. However, it is feasible 

that pronghorn behavior or populations could be altered at some level of development. 

4-220 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

The acreage of wildlife habitat disturbance coupled with the level of fragmentation and human presence 

and noise during critical life stages determine whether wildlife would be able to remain in an oil and gas 

field. Research has shown that sage-grouse will tolerate one well per section within 3 miles of a lek 

(Holloran 2005). In addition, timing restrictions on construction and drilling during the breeding season 

do not prevent impacts of infrastructure (e.g., avoidance, collisions, raptor predation) at other times of the 

year, during the production phase (which may last a decade or more), or in other seasonal habitats that 

may be crucial for population persistence (e.g., winter) (Walker et al. 2006). 

Greater sage-grouse populations in Sublette County and across the west have been declining over the last 

half of the century due to such factors as habitat degradation, fragmentation, and loss (Holloran 2005). As 

oil and gas development has increased in Wyoming, so has the concern over how this type of 

development might affect greater sage-grouse populations. Impacts of fluid mineral development on 

greater sage-grouse populations in developed fields would include habitat loss from well, road, pipeline, 

and transmission line construction; displacement from increased human activity and associated noise; 

increased illegal harvest; and mortality associated with evaporation ponds and increased exposure to 

predation (Braun 1986; Schroeder et al. 2004). Greater sage-grouse are dependent on sagebrush habitats 

year-round. Habitat loss and degradation, as well as loss of population connectivity have been identified 

as important factors contributing to the rangewide decline of greater sage-grouse populations (Braun 

1998; Wisdom et al. 2002). Therefore, any activities that result in the loss or degradation of sagebrush 

habitats that are important to this species should be closely evaluated for their impacts on sage-grouse. It 

is likely that sage-grouse populations in the planning area would continue to decline at an unknown rate. 

As more generations of greater sage-grouse yearlings become displaced to areas outside of the natural gas 

development, “refugia” habitats would become important as a reservoir population to reestablish a 

reclaimed natural gas field. However, if there are not adequate buffers between fields or a lengthening of 

the time frame between development of additional gas fields surrounding the one currently under 

construction (Holloran 2005; Braun et al. 2002), there may not be adequate reservoir populations 

available for reestablishment. Sage-grouse could repopulate an area following energy development, but 

there is little evidence suggesting grouse populations would attain predevelopment levels (Connelly 

1999). 

Other studies conducted on greater sage-grouse indicate that noise could adversely affect the 

communication abilities of strutting males (LaGory et al. 2001; Dantzker et al. 1999). Continuous noise 

emissions from industrial facilities such as compressor stations located close to active greater sage-grouse 

leks would interfere with sage-grouse strutting behavior (Holloran 2005). This would reduce the 

reproductive success of the greater sage-grouse using leks close to noise sources. All sagebrush-obligate 

species are affected by habitat alterations resulting in sagebrush (Artemesia spp.) removal and reduction 

of shrub patch size (Holloran 2005). 

Well densities exceeding one well per 699 acres are likely to lead to declines in male sage-grouse lek 

attendance (Holloran 2005; Holloran and Anderson 2005; Holloran et al. 2005; Doherty et al. in press; 

Kaiser 2006; Lyon and Anderson 2003; Walker et al. in press). Overall declines in male lek attendance 

approached 100% when the distance from leks to drilling rigs, producing wells, and main haul roads 

decreased, in conjunction with an increase in the number of wells within 5 km and the total length of main 

haul roads within 3 km (attributed to traffic volume and vehicle activity during the strutting period) of the 

lek (Holloran 2005). In the Powder River Basin in Buffalo, Wyoming, research on the effects of CBNG 

production on sage-grouse populations conducted by Walker et al. (2006) indicated that from 2001 to 

2005, the number of males observed on leks in CBNG fields declined more rapidly than on leks outside of 

CBNG fields. Of leks active in 1997 or later, only 38% of 26 leks in 26 CBNG fields remained active by 

2004–2005, compared to 84% of 250 leks outside CBNG fields. By 2005, leks in CBNG fields had 46% 

fewer males per active lek than those outside of CBNG fields. Finally, active leks in energy-developed 

Pinedale RMP 4-221 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

areas are experiencing a lack of yearling male recruitment. Assuming a yearly male mortality of 50%, a 

lek could become inactive in 4–6 years if yearling sage-grouse recruitment does not occur (Kaiser 2006).

Sage-grouse are closely tied to sagebrush habitats throughout their annual cycle, and variation in the 

amount of sagebrush habitat available for foraging and nesting is likely to influence the size of breeding 

populations and persistence of leks (Walker et al. 2006). Walker et al. (2006) found that maintaining 

extensive stands of sagebrush habitat over large areas (6.4 km or more) around leks is required for sagegrouse breeding populations to persist. Walker et al. (in press) have determined that current lease 

stipulations that prohibit development within 0.4 km of sage-grouse leks on federal lands are inadequate 

to ensure lek persistence and may result in impacts to breeding populations over larger areas. Seasonal 

restrictions on drilling and construction do not address impacts caused by loss of sagebrush and incursion 

of infrastructure that can affect populations over long periods of time. 

In addition, female sage-grouse are known to have a high fidelity to their natal nesting habitat; it could be 

5–9 years before the nesting population response to a gas field development is realized (Holloran 2005). 

Yearling female sage-grouse displaced from their natal habitat have been found to have a lower nest 

initiation rate than those that remained, perhaps because of unfamiliarity with the habitat (Kaiser 2006). 

Over time, female sage-grouse chose nest sites farther from active drilling rigs and producing gas wells, 

suggesting a long-term avoidance of active natural gas developments (Holloran 2005). 

Inglefinger (2001) found that for lands within 328 feet (100 meters [m]) of a road or well pad, the density 

of sagebrush obligate birds drops by 50 % regardless of the amount of activity on the road. 

Mineral development would likely deplete water from the Colorado River system. Water depletion can 

affect fisheries locally and downstream from the planning area. Though not calculated in this land use 

planning document for each alternative (amounts will be handled through site-specific environmental 

documents by project and proponent), depletions may affect, and are likely to adversely affect, Colorado 

River sensitive species.

The direct impacts on recharge of surface water resources from groundwater sources because of CBNG 

development are variable, depending on the connectivity of surface water resources to the target 

groundwater aquifer. Reduction of recharge to streams and wetlands that might be of importance to 

aquatic populations could occur if the groundwater and surface water resources were connected. Based on 

the depth of targeted coal formations (1,200 to 5,500 feet) and high pressures in most reservoirs, it is 

unlikely that a connection to surface waters would exist. 

Surface-disturbing activities associated with well pad construction would increase sediment delivery to 

stream and standing water systems, which could interfere with fish life stages. Clean gravels are required 

by most salmonid fish species for successful spawning. Increased sediment delivery can embed these 

gravels and render spawning efforts unsuccessful. In addition, habitat fragmentation has been shown to 

interfere with the metapopulation dynamics of many fish populations. When extirpations occur because of 

localized environmental variation, restrictions on fish passage eliminate the possibility of the area being 

recolonized from a neighboring population. 

Evaporation ponds built for produced water from producing natural gas wells contain waters that are 

highly alkaline and contain very high concentrations of salt. Waterfowl and shorebirds become attracted 

to these ponds and over time become encrusted; this can cause death from excess salts in the body from 

preening; birds can drown from the excess weight, or they can suffer from cold stress resulting from the 

loss of insulation from their feathers (USFWS 2006). Making these areas less attractive to birds would 

mitigate this situation. 

4-222 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

The potential for locatable minerals production in the planning area is low. However, if locatable minerals 

were developed, impacts would include displacement of wildlife from developed areas, avoidance of a 

larger area around the development because of human presence and noise, and possible offsite impacts, 

including erosion and sedimentation of streams. 

Salable minerals extraction would result in short-term, direct impacts on wildlife and associated habitat. 

Impacts would include displacement and disturbance of animals, removal of vegetation, and loss of 

habitat. The level of impacts would be dependent on the size of the salable minerals area and the 

importance of the altered habitat to wildlife. Many sand and gravel areas are associated with riverine and 

alluvial plains; their development would impact these areas. The vegetative communities normally 

associated with these areas would be significantly impacted by the extraction of salable minerals. 

Cottonwood communities normally associated with these minerals would be impacted by potentially 

lowering the water table, resulting in loss of these communities. Aeries for nesting birds such as great 

blue herons, bald eagles, and habitat for numerous waterfowl and neotropical migrants that rely on many 

of these communities would be lost. Many big game species rely on these areas during the winter to 

provide cover from the elements. 

The extraction of salable minerals would also potentially alter water tables and possibly impact stream 

channels if development were to take place close to adjacent riparian areas. This would lead to increased 

sediment loading and siltation, impacting fish populations and their prey base. 

Management actions for paleontological resources likely would provide varying degrees of habitat 

protection by minimizing vegetation loss and erosion and by restricting surface-disturbing activities. 

Wildlife disturbances could occur if public interpretation facilities generate increased human presence 

during sensitive seasonal periods (e.g., breeding, nesting, or migration); however, it is not likely that 

substantial human presence would occur during the winter period. 

Recreational activities that result in increased human presence would have localized impacts on wildlife 

and fish species. These activities would include hiking, biking, camping, boating, fishing, hunting, and 

sightseeing. Although many recreational activities are nonconsumptive, they can have an impact on 

wildlife and fish and their habitats. Increased human presence could result in habitat or water quality 

degradation or wildlife disturbance (e.g., dispersal or avoidance). If recreational activities were conducted 

on noncrucial habitats or during seasons when sensitive wildlife species are not present and in compliance 

with recreation management actions, impacts likely would be minimal. During seasonally sensitive 

periods (e.g., winter, parturition, breeding, nesting, and early brood rearing), recreational activities could 

significantly alter animal behavior and result in increased winter mortality or lowered reproductive 

success. 

The installation of recreational facilities, particularly in new areas, could disturb habitat during 

construction, permanently alter the habitat, or lead to increased human presence that could disturb 

wildlife. Animal avoidance of developed areas would be similar to that seen for any other type of 

development in wildlife habitat. 

In addition to the stressors from BLM-permitted activities on game animals (big game, small game, 

furbearers, and game birds), these animals are hunted seasonally. Pursuit of game animals during hunting 

seasons may provide additional short-term stressors. Hunting seasons vary from weeks to months 

depending on the game species and are designed to harvest animals to maintain established population 

objectives and/or maintain populations at or below sustainable habitat thresholds (carrying capacity). 

In general, OHV management decisions that result in increased human presence would have a moderate, 

localized impact on wildlife and fisheries. Impacts would include increased displacement of wildlife, 

Pinedale RMP 4-223 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

increased stress during critical time periods, and degradation of habitats. OHV use can alter the seasonal 

use patterns of many wildlife species. The use of snow vehicles on winter range could lead to excessive 

wildlife disturbance, causing additional stress, more rapid depletion of fat (energy) reserves, and in 

extreme cases, death. New roads created from the extensive use of OHVs could result in access to areas 

that normally do not contain human presence; habitat degradation through vegetation loss; access for 

predator species, creating competition for species such as Canada lynx; and soil compaction, causing 

accelerated erosion or preventing water infiltration. 

Use of transportation and access routes has the potential to fragment wildlife habitats and degrade 

vegetation communities by increasing erosion and stream sedimentation. Vehicle-wildlife collisions could 

increase in areas of high wildlife use and high human activity. 

Road closures and subsequent reclamation would benefit fish and wildlife by improving habitat and water 

quality. Closure and reclamation of unnecessary roads could reduce fragmentation and restore habitat 

integrity while reducing the potential for wildlife disturbance. 

Management actions to prevent the reoccurrence and spread of invasive and noxious weeds would 

maintain the native vegetative species that provide wildlife forage and habitat. Certain species of noxious 

weeds are poisonous and potentially fatal to some wildlife species. 

Water impoundments change the hydrologic characteristics of the watershed and impact fish habitats by 

altering water temperatures and the timing and volume of flow, minimizing the effects of flushing flows 

and altering sediment transport within the system. In addition, impoundments constructed on streams 

containing populations of fish, invertebrates, or amphibians could limit movement between required 

habitats. Reservoirs with habitat sufficient to support salmonid populations would increase habitats 

available for potential trout fisheries. In addition, small reservoirs (including beaver dams) can improve 

stream flow, especially later in the season, by increasing water storage in the soil profile and releasing it 

gradually. 

In general, water depletions occur when water is removed from flowing rivers and streams, or when water 

is pumped from groundwater aquifers that recharge (are directly connected with) rivers and streams. 

Groundwater and surface water interaction typically occurs in shallow aquifers; increased depths reduce 

the likelihood of impacts from groundwater pumping. 

Fencing of springs and seeps to protect water sources would help to maintain flow conditions supportive 

of fish populations. The use or implementation of grazing BMPs would help to maintain or restore habitat 

conditions for a variety of fishes. Rangeland and vegetation monitoring and grazing management 

decisions would help to ensure that livestock grazing does not significantly impact wildlife habitats. 

The health of fisheries within the planning area is directly related to the overall health and functional 

capabilities of riparian resources, which in turn are a reflection of watershed health. Any activities that 

affect the ecological condition of the watershed and its vegetative cover would directly affect the aquatic 

environment. Any substantial disturbance to soils or changes in vegetative cover would have an effect on 

watershed health and water quality and would therefore have an effect on associated fisheries. The degree 

of impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of disturbances would be influenced by location 

within the watershed, time and degree of disturbance, existing vegetation, and precipitation. Water quality 

and watershed management actions designed to achieve PFC in riparian areas would improve fish habitat 

in areas not currently at PFC. 

Surface disturbances near streams and watercourses would result in accelerated erosion and runoff, 

increasing stream flow and sediment and nutrient loads to local channels. Sedimentation of a given 

4-224 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

channel could impact fisheries by reducing habitat complexity, resulting in a lower diversity of prey 

organisms. Increased turbidity would also result from increased sediment input, decreasing light 

penetration and inhibiting visual predation by fish. Surface disturbance near streams that results in 

substantial removal of riparian vegetation could increase current velocity, putting additional strain on fish 

and reducing nutrient cycling. In addition to increased sediment input, stream bank disturbance could 

impact fisheries by creating bank instability, which could alter flow and destroy pool-riffle formations 

necessary for fish survival. Increased nutrient loading of streams could also impact fisheries by increasing 

primary production above natural levels, which would degrade habitat and decrease oxygen levels. Since 

any impact on natural water resources is also an impact on fisheries, impacts on fisheries can be inferred 

from Section 4.15, which discusses impacts on riparian areas and water quality. Four endangered species 

outside of Wyoming are affected adversely by water depletions within the planning area due to changes in 

water quantity, timing, and flow. See the biological assessment that meets the requirements for ESA 

Section 7 consultation. 

Wildlife species have adapted to survive the pattern of fire frequency, season, size, severity, and 

uniformity that characterized their habitat in pre-settlement times. Historically, low-intensity fires created 

mosaics resulting in more variability in vegetation seral stage, species composition, vertical stratification, 

and improved herbaceous understory. If the fire frequency or severity increases or decreases from presettlement patterns, habitat for many species would decline. Animal-fire studies have shown a 

reorganization of animal communities in response to fire, with increases in some species and decreases in 

others (Smith 2000). In areas where fire exclusion has changed species composition and fuel arrays over 

large areas, subsequent fires without prior fuel modification are unlikely to restore pre-settlement 

vegetation and habitat. In the last 10,000 years, fire in North American ecosystems has not operated in 

isolation from other disturbances or has occurred independent of human influence (Smith 2000). 

Over the past several decades, human intervention in fire suppression has led to unnatural fuel-loading 

conditions that could allow wildfires to burn with greater intensity. These unnatural fuel loading 

conditions have occurred primarily in the sagebrush/grass ecosystems, the transition areas between the 

sagebrush/grass and limber pine/ juniper woodlands and some xeric Douglas fir sites. The long return 

interval stand replacement regimes found in the lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests within the planning 

areas have been affected to a much lesser extent. Using fire as a habitat management tool in a sage-steppe 

ecosystem may have effects if improperly used such as by converting desirable shrub and perennial grass 

stands to annual grasses or maintaining annual grass communities. 

Prescribed fire and wildland fire could have both short-term and long-term effects on wildlife. In the short 

term, animals would be displaced from habitats, small game and ground-nesting birds could be killed, and 

vegetation and forage would be removed. Any fire would cause some loss of less mobile wildlife that may 

not be able to avoid the fire path. Surface disturbance associated with fire line construction, the use of 

heavy equipment, and other fire suppression activity could damage or destroy vegetation and habitat. 

Fire would generally improve habitat conditions for most species over the long term. Fire would reduce 

dense understory that has mixed values for various species of wildlife. If a fire consumes great volumes of 

plant material in a forest, the ash may serve as an important fertilizer (USDA 2004). In vegetative climax 

communities, fire would return the vegetative community to an earlier stage of succession, increasing 

forage and cover for a greater diversity of wildlife. Fire can result in removal of excess dead and dying 

trees, reducing hiding cover for prey species, potential thermal cover in the winter months, and lynx 

denning and rearing habitat. However, in the long term, fire would increase denning habitat by increasing 

horizontal cover with log and limb fall. Additional aspen growth after a fire would be available for 

instream uses by beavers, which would generally improve habitat conditions for a variety of fish and 

wildlife species. The extent of effects on wildlife that result from fire depends on the extent of change in 

habitat structure and species composition caused by the fire. Stand replacement fires typically alter the 

Pinedale RMP 4-225 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

animal community more dramatically than understory fires (Smith 2000); however, at the species-specific 

level, such as the Canada lynx, understory fires may have greater impacts because their primary prey 

species (the snowshoe hare) depends on the understory shrub structure. 

Prescribed burns would usually be conducted during the spring or fall. These fires would generally be 

“cooler” than summer wildland fires and typically would not severely sterilize soils or the nutrients found 

in the ash of fire. Prescribed fire could increase the nutrient content of shrubs. A slight and short-lived 

increase in protein in grasses could also occur (Jourdannais and Bedunah 1990). 

Big sagebrush is completely killed when burned (USDA 2004). Prescribed fire intensity could be 

sufficiently high to kill seeds in the upper part of the surface litter, or in the inflorescence. Those seeds on 

or under the mineral soil surface may survive (USDA 2004), reducing the reestablishment of sagebrush 

seedlings postfire. Removal of large tracts of sagebrush in sage-grouse nesting habitats has resulted in 

major declines in sage-grouse breeding populations (Connelly et al. 1999). Studies of the effects of 

burning mountain big sagebrush have shown that the canopy cover had not recovered to provide 

appropriate nesting habitat for sage-grouse 14 years after burning (Connelly 1999). In addition, the 

biological soil crusts that are important in binding the soil, increasing soil moisture infiltration and 

retention, and nitrogen fixation (Rosentreter 2003) in a sage community may be compromised by a highintensity fire. 

An increase in wildland and prescribed fire frequency, coupled with drought, has contributed to the 

decline of the quality and quantity of sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitats, as well as overall 

population declines (Slater 2003). This has created long-term impacts on sage-grouse populations where 

sagebrush recovery occurs between 15 and 40 years, depending on the species of sagebrush (Slater 2003). 

If fire return intervals occur between 100 and 200 years in arid mountain big sagebrush/western 

needlegrass communities (Brown 2000), the role of fire as a sagebrush habitat management tool may be 

questioned. Areas that have been burned could be unable to consistently produce forbs, and have been 

found to have a reduction in the number and diversity of insect species that are the main dietary 

components for sage-grouse broods (Connelly et al. 1999). Slater (2000) found sage-grouse use for 

loafing and feeding in prescribed and wildland burned habitats occurred primarily in areas 60 m from the 

burned/unburned edge. The burn areas did not contain greatly improved brood-rearing habitat; however, 

females were able to find select areas to take their young. Where suitable greater sage-grouse nesting or 

winter concentration habitats are adversely impacted, the length of time to return these areas to a suitable 

state would be extensive. 

Numerous residential and neotropical migrant bird species would be directly impacted by loss of habitat 

from wildland fires. The duration of habitat loss would depend on the types of vegetation removed and 

the fire severity. 

Vegetative treatments in some upland areas could increase water yields and affect fish habitats. These 

effects are likely to be highly variable depending on local hydrologic characteristics and fish community 

interactions and are generally short term. Increased inputs of carbon to sterile aquatic habitats (aquatic 

habitats associated with acidic soil types) that result from fires could cause localized impacts on fish 

populations, spawning beds, and aquatic habitats. An increase in carbon could create higher nutrient loads 

for micro-invertebrates; however, these increases show short-term benefits (2–5 years) until the carbon 

loading subsides. 

Habitats used by greater sage-grouse have been widely altered by land management practices, resulting in 

vegetation manipulations during the last 150 years (Braun 1987; Connelly and Braun 1997; Schroeder et 

al. 1999, 2004; Rowland et al. 2004). By 1974, about 10% to 12% of the 40 million hectares of sagebrush 

steppe habitats in North America had been treated to provide forage for livestock (Rowland et al. 2004). 

4-226 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

Overall, more than 80% of sagebrush steppe habitats have been altered in some way by human activities 

(Rowland et al. 2004). 

The management of wetland/riparian areas to improve their PFC rating would improve habitat conditions 

for various fish and wildlife species. Because the PFC assessment methodology does not incorporate the 

habitat requirements of fish and wildlife, additional management would be necessary to ensure that 

habitats provide conditions suitable to meet the life history requirements of various fish and wildlife 

species. 

Chemical and mechanical fire management equipment would potentially result in habitat degradation 

through the creation of roads for fire control equipment. Use of chemicals and other fire suppression 

measures would potentially degrade vegetation and water quality, altering the type of forage available and 

the quality of water available for wildlife in the area. The duration of the impacts would vary depending 

on the type of methods employed and the habitat type being treated. 

Fire suppression agents contain chemicals that can be detrimental and poisonous to macro-invertebrates 

that are a necessary food source for numerous fish and wildlife species. Some of these fire suppression 

chemicals are also directly poisonous to some fish and wildlife species. 

There has been research documenting the benefits of vegetation manipulation for big game species; 

however, there has been no documentation on the effects or the need of such manipulations in the 

planning area to improve sage-grouse nesting habitat. 

Wildlife management would prevent or reduce impacts on wildlife species and habitat resulting from 

surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities through the implementation of mitigation and BMPs, 

such as timing stipulations and designation of spatial buffers. These stipulations would provide some 

mitigation for loss of habitat function or habitat value for wildlife or fish species, including Special Status 

Species. 

Human disturbance near raptor nest sites could result in the abandonment of the nest; high nestling 

mortality from overheating, chilling, or desiccation when young are left unattended; premature fledging; 

and ejection of eggs or young from the nest. Raptors that successfully nest during a disturbance may 

abandon the nesting territory the following year. Responses of nesting raptors to human disturbance 

typically are determined by the type, duration, magnitude, noise level, and timing of activity relative to 

nesting phenology. Although some level of habituation to disturbance could occur, repeated flushing of 

adult raptors increases energy expenditure during foraging and decreases energy ingestion, depleting 

energy reserves and resulting in premature mortality during harsh conditions. Evidence suggests that 

some falcons, ospreys, and owls are generally more tolerant of human-induced disturbance and human 

environments; golden eagles, turkey vultures, northern harriers, Cooper’s hawks, northern goshawks, and 

sharp-shinned hawks appear much less tolerant; and buteos exhibit a wide range of acceptance levels; 

however, some speculate that ferruginous hawks should be considered the raptor most sensitive to human 

disturbance. Raptors are less tolerant of disturbance when populations of prey species are at low levels 

(Romin and Muck 2002). 

Careful placement of future water injection wells is essential for the continued protection of sensitive 

habitats and future wildlife population expansion. Injection facilities have continued human presence and 

truck traffic. 

Protection of habitats for Special Status Species ensures that suitable habitat would be available for 

dispersal areas, territory shifting, and recruitment. In addition, the protection of species and habitat during 

sensitive life cycles is essential to species survival and could prevent future ESA listing. Avoidance is the 

Pinedale RMP 4-227 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

only known effective mitigation strategy for sensitive species such as the white-tailed prairie dog and the 

pygmy rabbit. If there are known occurrences of these species and their habitats cannot be avoided, 

pygmy rabbits and white-tailed prairie dogs could leave their burrow systems and be displaced into 

existing territories or be killed by surface-disturbing activities. Pygmy rabbits have small home ranges, 

and habitat isolation can be detrimental to maintaining viable populations and genetic integrity. Most of 

the known occurrences of the white-tailed prairie dog occur within the Jonah and Anticline Fields. The 

impacts of intense development have not been studied to date, and the planning area could face 

extirpation of the white-tailed prairie dog if mitigation efforts fail. Populations of pygmy rabbits are being 

found in many different areas throughout the planning area. There could be more mitigation opportunities 

for the pygmy rabbit when survey efforts delineate the full extent of their range. 

Winter big game habitat is more sensitive to logging, road construction, and vegetative change than other 

seasonal habitats. Since winter habitats are considered the “limiting factor” to these big game populations, 

significant modifications to habitat suitability can impact species survivability and viability (e.g., higher 

winter mortality, reduced reproductive success), ultimately leading to reductions in population size. This 

impact would be intensified in areas where winter range habitat is in unsuitable condition. 

Big game migration routes have been used for hundreds or thousands of years. Development of all types 

could narrow or interrupt important corridors. Wildlife could be prevented from accessing crucial habitat, 

with herds displaced to less desirable locations or locations unwanted by the public, or out-competed by 

other species. 

The management actions afforded to SD/MAs would generally result in impacts on wildlife. Protections 

aimed at conserving vegetation and limiting surface-disturbing activities would benefit wildlife by 

preventing surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities in sensitive habitats. Further analysis is 

provided in the discussions for each SD/MA. 

The WSAs would benefit wildlife and fish species and their habitats by restricting surface-disturbing and 

other disruptive activities and preserving wilderness characteristics. Loss or alteration of high-value 

wildlife habitat would be minimized in the WSAs. 

Any offsite mitigation actions must be carefully analyzed, with baseline vegetative information collected 

before the project is designed, to facilitate the use of proper management techniques for the circumstances 

of the location and the species that use the habitat. Projects not taking these issues under consideration 

may create long-term population instabilities. 

4.17.4 Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing 

Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 1. 

The identification and preservation of cultural properties would indirectly affect wildlife and fish by 

restricting surface disturbance and helping maintain the integrity of habitat in the area. Authorized 

excavation of cultural sites would have local impacts on wildlife and their habitats through displacement 

of animals and disruption of wildlife use of the site (particularly for species with small home ranges and 

specific habitat requirements). These impacts would be of unknown duration. Cultural site excavations 

could increase erosion or stream sedimentation, potentially impacting fish spawning. However, the 

extremely localized nature of cultural excavations would minimize the likelihood and magnitude of these 

impacts. 

4-228 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

The forest management unit’s objectives were designed to minimize impacts on elk and CRCT. Forest 

management actions could impact feeding, breeding, and sheltering of raptors and other forest-dependent 

species. Habitat fragmentation and degradation, increased human presence, and habitat access by 

competitor species that normally cannot use these areas could all be impacts on these species, depending 

on whether the action is a harvest or thinning, where the access roads are constructed, the type of 

equipment used, and the rate of habitat rehabilitation. 

Land tenure adjustment actions could impact wildlife and fisheries, depending on the future use of the 

habitat. Even uses that maintain open spaces could have an impact if the habitat is altered. 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). 

Disposing of all acres that meet the FLPMA disposal criteria could fragment sensitive habitats. 

Exchanging parcels rather than using other disposal methods could ensure that sensitive habitats remain 

secure, prevent further fragmentation, and address management gaps caused by isolated private 

landholdings. Disposing of or exchanging parcels containing riparian/wetland and aquatic resources could 

reduce available habitat for migratory songbirds (including the yellow-billed cuckoo) and sensitive fish, 

as well as crucial moose winter range and sage-grouse brood-rearing areas. An exchange could be 

beneficial if the habitat acquired is high quality and contains a great wildlife and fish diversity. 

Land acquisitions could increase the overall quantity or quality of wildlife habitat within the planning 

area. Land exchanges to acquire state and private lands in crucial habitats in important and predominantly 

federal MAs likely would result in long-term habitat sustainability. 

Routing linear ROWs (e.g., pipelines, power lines, roads) where impacts would be least disturbing would 

help to minimize fragmentation of sensitive habitats. However, habitat fragmentation would still occur as 

more ROWs are located and developed or as an existing ROW corridor is expanded. Restricting 

communication tower heights and requiring towers to be nonguyed would reduce impacts on migratory 

birds, including collisions during periods of low visibility. 

Allowing wind energy development throughout the planning area would create collision hazards for bats, 

multiple avian species, and greater sage-grouse. Large wind energy fields also involve surface 

disturbance, which could permanently change the habitat structure of the wildlife inhabitants. 

Designing livestock grazing systems to limit forage competition between livestock and wildlife for forbs, 

shrubs, and other desirable plants would aid in wildlife survival at critical times of the year. It would be 

particularly critical in the spring, when enhanced nutrition is essential following the demands on body 

reserves during the winter, to maintain residual grass cover for sage-grouse nests, or to maintain greater 

forb diversity for juveniles (e.g., sage-grouse chicks). 

Maintaining livestock grazing AUMs in areas of intense industrial activity could result in lower sagegrouse nesting success and increased big game forage competition. Many of these industrialized areas 

correspond to sensitive wildlife habitats (e.g., big game crucial winter range and migration routes, greater 

sage-grouse nesting and winter concentration areas). Without an appropriate reduction in AUMs, the 

combination of industrial development and livestock grazing could severely impact the suitability of these 

areas for wildlife. Where wildlife are being displaced from important habitats by human activity and 

industrial development, the additional impact of competition with livestock for forage could be 

detrimental to the local wildlife population. 

Allocating forage increases realized from management prescriptions and range improvement practices to 

wildlife and livestock could potentially benefit wildlife species by increasing the amount of forage 

Pinedale RMP 4-229 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

available. Forage increases achieved through vegetation treatment practices would be temporary, because 

the vegetative community is successional. Active management of vegetation treatments would improve 

grazing conditions, potentially decreasing competition for forage between big game and livestock. Any 

increases in AUMs allocated to livestock (increasing permitted use) would have the potential to increase 

forage competition with wildlife. 

Water projects developed on crucial winter ranges could lead to a redistribution of livestock on those 

ranges, which could result in the loss of sufficient forage to maintain wildlife during the winter. Loss of 

forage could cause wildlife redistribution, particularly big game, to areas that might be occupied by other 

big game herds, to areas containing a lower quality habitat, or to private lands. Because native winter 

habitats can only support a limited wildlife population, this could result in increased winter mortality and 

reduced species viability. Restricting placement of mineral supplements within 500 feet of live water or 

wetland/riparian areas would minimize soil compaction and subsequent runoff near surface waters. 

Approximately 1,026,780 acres would be available for oil and gas leasing and development. Timing and 

distance mitigation would be applied to protect sage-grouse, raptors, and big game and their habitats; 

however, there is no current scientific evidence that proves these actions are enough to maintain these 

species in their current habitat ranges. 

It is estimated that a total of 7,192 wells (5,162 vertical wells and 2,030 directional wells) (5,452 pads) 

would be developed under Alternative 1. The acres disturbed (43,022 acres of initial surface disturbance; 

17,372 acres of long-term disturbance) would take place in some important habitats, such as crucial big 

game winter range and sage-grouse habitats. For some species (e.g., sage-grouse), the impacts of longterm and short-term surface disturbance are the same if the level of human presence is maintained. In 

addition, habitat fragmentation would be greater in areas that have a higher proportion of vertical wells. 

Discharge of continuous flows of water into drainages not adapted to continued flows would lead to 

stream channel geomorphic adjustments, including downcutting, widening, and straightening, which 

would reduce the diversity of habitats required by fish life stages (i.e., juvenile rearing habitats, spawning 

habitats, and refuge habitats). 

The impacts on fisheries from surface discharge of produced waters would be variable and depend on 

both the quantity and quality of the discharged waters. Discharge of produced water resulting from natural 

gas extraction from coal reservoirs to surface water features would affect fisheries by altering local 

hydrologic conditions of receiving water bodies. If the discharged water were of lesser quality than 

receiving water bodies, fish could be affected either directly (e.g., through increased water temperatures) 

or through the processes of bioaccumulation of metals and salts. Fish adapted to highly turbid rivers 

would be impacted by the discharge of clearer waters. In addition, decreasing the intermittence of flows 

would favor introduced fish over native fish that have evolved in the presence of a highly variable 

environment. 

The NSO designation in the Rock Creek watershed area would prevent disturbance to sensitive habitats 

and destruction of vegetation associated with minerals development and reduce the potential for increased 

erosion, sedimentation of surface water, and human-caused wildlife disturbances. Pursuing a withdrawal 

would help further prevent these impacts from occurring. Prohibiting forest management activities within 

the drainage area would eliminate habitat disturbance associated with forest management (e.g., loss of 

wildlife habitats, including fragmentation) and prevent excess erosion and sedimentation in the drainage 

area. 

Seasonal limitations on geophysical activities would be beneficial for wildlife during the critical life 

stages of the limitation; however, depending on the type of equipment being used, geophysical 

4-230 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

exploration could result in fragmented and degraded habitat for those species after the exploration is 

completed. 

If coal lease applications were approved, the appropriate mitigation measures would be developed. The 

extent of wildlife and fish impacts could be extensive, depending on the extent and location of the coal 

development. Activities could cause wildlife avoidance and habitat destruction within the footprint of the 

development. Development of other leasable minerals (e.g., geothermal steam, coal, sodium, oil shale, 

phosphate) would have the same impacts as traditional oil and gas development on wildlife. Depending 

on the scale and location of the disturbance to critical wildlife habitats, the effects could be more 

immediate. 

Withdrawals of NRHP-eligible sites from mineral location would indirectly help to preserve wildlife 

habitats in the vicinity of the sites. 

OHV use restrictions would limit the potential for the proliferation of unauthorized trails and related 

habitat degradation and wildlife disturbance. OHV Open areas would be provided for recreational use; 

these include the Big Piney, Mount Airy, and Desert General Use areas (247,250 total acres). All of these 

areas have a sensitive wildlife component during a particular season of use, which includes big game 

migration and winter foraging and greater sage-grouse and raptor nesting. OHV use in these open areas 

would alter wildlife use patterns and reduce avian nesting success and cause nest abandonment. 

Limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails (662,060 acres) and closing areas to OHV use (13,620 

acres) would help to protect wildlife from human-caused disturbances or to sustain habitat integrity and 

water quality by preventing vegetation loss or soil erosion and compaction. Restricting and closing OHV 

use in crucial big game winter ranges and the elk feedgrounds would increase fitness and decrease 

displacement to areas of lower quality habitats. Avian and sage-grouse nesting success could be higher 

than in areas of high OHV use, and fitness could also be higher because of reduced stress of displacement. 

Impacts on wildlife and fisheries could result from management of the Boulder Lake, Scab Creek, and 

Upper Green River SRMAs. The installation of facilities could directly disturb wildlife, permanently alter 

the habitat, or lead to increased human presence that possibly results in wildlife abandonment of those 

areas. 

Management actions under Alternative 1 could include reductions in livestock numbers, adjustments in 

grazing distribution patterns, fencing, herding, livestock conversions, and so forth. Alternative 1 

prioritizes riparian management objectives and does not discuss any other habitat types. 

Avoiding surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities in identified 100-year flood plains; areas 

within 500 feet of perennial waters, springs, wells, and wetlands; and areas 100 feet from the inner gorge 

of ephemeral drainages would help to maintain the functionality of aquatic ecosystems for various fish 

and amphibian species. 

Implementation of the East Front Aquatic and Upper Green River Habitat Management Plans (HMP) 

would contribute to the increase of these populations and could provide for further insight into BMPs for 

these species. 

Gray wolves have been known to forage from elk feedground to feedground within the planning area 

throughout the winter. Feedground elk no longer have the ability to move to lower elevations and disperse 

during the winter. There has also been no evidence of gray wolves limiting the elk herd populations by 

unnecessary killing. Ungulates are the primary food source of gray wolves, and gray wolves within the 

Greater Yellowstone area primarily feed on elk. The kill rate is one every 14 days (Carbyn 1983). 

Pinedale RMP 4-231 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

Maintaining the elk feedgrounds under this alternative would continue the pattern of elk use and elkpredator relations that currently exist in the planning area. Elk would continue to gather on the 

feedgrounds and spend much of the winter in close association. In addition to brucellosis, which is 

currently present in the herds, other diseases such as bovine tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease 

could spread more rapidly through the population if they are introduced to the area. 

The feedgrounds would continue to provide winter sustenance for elk, preventing elk from using or 

destroying private haystacks and fences and from mingling with livestock on winter feed lines. 

The Rock Creek ACEC (proposed) and the Deadline-Graphite elk winter range would provide elk winter 

range outside of the area currently subject to oil and gas exploration, in addition to habitat for a pure 

strain of CRCT. 

Limiting vehicle use in the Beaver Creek ACEC would protect sensitive vegetation, riparian areas, water 

quality, and wildlife and fish habitats. This restriction would prevent the pioneering of new access routes 

that could result in habitat degradation and wildlife disturbances. Management actions associated with 

VRM Class III designation would limit intensive development or surface disturbance. Limiting 

development on slopes greater than 25% and within 1,000 feet of streams would help to reduce erosion, 

degradation of water quality, and destruction of habitat and nesting sites. Timber management activities 

would have the potential to damage vegetation and cause excessive erosion and sedimentation of surface 

water. Wildlife habitats would be altered, and the potential exists for increased wildlife disturbances that 

could cause dispersal or avoidance (both temporarily and permanently). Reducing the potential for road 

proliferation would alleviate fragmentation impacts on wildlife. Limiting stream crossings to lower 

elevations and gentler slopes and prohibiting creek diversions unless they benefit the CRCT would reduce 

the potential for adverse impact on fish habitats. 

4.17.5 Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 2. 

The impacts of locatable and salable minerals would be the same as under Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 would include fewer restrictions to protect cultural resources, which could indirectly 

increase the level of impact on wildlife and fish habitat from surface-disturbing activities. Actions 

prohibiting surface-disturbing activities and occupancy would indirectly benefit wildlife habitats that 

overlap sensitive cultural sites. However, because of the discrete areas that are typically associated with 

cultural sites, this would mainly benefit species with small home ranges or whose habitat requirements 

cover smaller areas (e.g., pygmy rabbits); areas outside of the buffers are not offered these measures, 

resulting in habitat fragmentation and displacement. 

The actions proposed under Alternative 2 would remove more forested habitat per year than those 

proposed under Alternative 1. In some areas this approach could be beneficial for the overall health of a 

stand. Forest management actions involving conifer-encroached aspen stands would result in the 

rejuvenation of decadent aspen stands and providing cover and forage resources for wildlife. Multiseral 

stages of aspen and associated understory provide multiple benefits to many wildlife species. In addition, 

maintaining forest health is beneficial to streams and fisheries. However, forest management actions 

could lead to loss of important lynx habitats in a particular Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU).

4-232 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

Land tenure adjustments proposed under this alternative would have various effects on wildlife and 

fisheries. Approximately 5,000 acres of BLM-administered public lands would be available for 

consideration for disposal (Appendix 14); this would allow fewer acres for disposal than under 

Alternative 1. Whereas Alternative 1 emphasizes that exchange for these lands is preferred, this is not 

proposed under Alternative 2; nor is the acquisition of lands in big game migratory pathways or other 

important wildlife habitats. Alternative 2 focuses on responding to the community needs of expansion and 

development. Many of the big game migratory pathways are being bottlenecked because of 

housing/community and mineral/industrial development in migration corridors. Further disposal of these 

lands would either exacerbate the existing issues (displacing mule deer and pronghorn farther onto private 

land) or cause abandonment of these historic pathways. Disposal of lands in riparian zones and crucial 

habitats could impact wildlife and fish species and their habitat by disrupting migration routes and 

limiting the availability of high-quality crucial winter range, calving and fawning, and brooding and 

nesting areas. 

This alternative provides more opportunity for energy-related ROWs; Alternative 1 designated only two 

corridors. There is no designation of ROW exclusion areas under Alternative 2; in fact, there is more of 

an opportunity for an exception to this exclusion under this alternative, resulting in an increase in the level 

of related disturbance to wildlife and fish habitats. 

Alternative energy developments would be permitted throughout the planning area. New developments 

could permanently discourage specialist wildlife species from reinhabiting those areas. For example, wind 

energy developments could cause adverse impacts on wildlife from collisions and habitat fragmentation 

and degradation. 

Produced water disposal pits and discharge flow of produced water into existing drainages could create 

more hazards to wildlife and fish. Produced water from producing natural gas wells can be highly alkaline 

and contain very high concentrations of salt (USFWS 2006). Waterfowl then accumulate high 

concentrations of salt in their feathers, causing them to drown from the excess weight, or they ingest it, 

accumulating the salt in their tissues. This discharge flow would be constant, which could change the soil 

chemistry of these drainages and increase salinity in fish habitat downstream. 

The goals of the livestock grazing program to maintain forage production and ecological conditions while 

maximizing commodity production may not meet the needs of wildlife and fish species. Competition 

between livestock and wildlife for forage would be increased with maximization of commodity 

production. Enhancement projects would be insufficient to replace habitats lost to development and 

commodity production. 

Activating suspended, nonuse AUMs (Table A20-1) would have impacts on wildlife and fisheries. 

Increased grazing could reduce suitable wildlife forage, displacing animals into areas that may not contain 

sufficient nutrients (decreasing fitness into the winter) or into private hayfields. Soil compaction could 

occur to the extent that optimal plant growth is not achieved or erosion is accelerated. 

Allowing livestock water developments wherever necessary to facilitate livestock operations could lead to 

longer periods of grazing by livestock on crucial winter ranges or other important habitats, resulting in the 

loss of sufficient forage needed to sustain wildlife during the winter. Cattle would be introduced into 

areas they may not have typically grazed because of the lack of water. The loss of forage could cause the 

displacement of wildlife species to other areas already occupied or to private lands. This would limit the 

areas where there is no forage competition and could result in further habitat degradation for some 

species. Because these areas can only support a limited number of wildlife, a reduction in the overall 

wildlife population could result. 

Pinedale RMP 4-233 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

By emphasizing livestock production in grazing systems, any forage increases realized from management 

prescriptions and range improvement practices would be allocated to livestock. In addition, vegetation 

treatments could be detrimental to sage-grouse nesting habitats if the treatment is designed solely to 

increase grass production. 

Approximately 866,990 acres would be open to leasing consideration, subject to the terms and conditions 

of the standard lease form (Map 2-2). Wildlife would be directly impacted through the loss and 

fragmentation of crucial winter habitats, potentially causing redistribution or avoidance of some areas. 

Additional wells would impact fisheries through increased surface runoff, causing stream siltation and 

sediment loading. 

It is estimated that 7,804 wells (5,614 vertical wells and 2,190 directional wells) (5,924 pads) would be 

developed under Alternative 2. The number of disturbed acres is larger than under any of the other 

alternatives (46,739 acres of short-term disturbance; 18,689 acres of long-term disturbance). Development 

would take place in critical and sensitive habitats, such as crucial big game winter range and sage-grouse 

and white-tailed prairie dog habitats. Impacts on the Intensively Developed Fields could be to the extent 

of local population abandonment (except for the generalist species or those that adapt to habitat loss and 

high levels of disturbance). Timing limitations have been found to be inadequate to maintain species such 

as sage-grouse in a developed field (Holloran 2005). However, timing limitations are an important tool 

for species protection during critical life stages (i.e., egg incubation and parturition), if they are used in 

conjunction with the proper habitat management for that species. A blanket exception to seasonal 

protection measures in fields such as Riley Ridge and South Piney (where the habitat functionality is 

intact) could be devastating to species such as elk and their native winter range and parturition habitats. 

These animals would be displaced into areas not typically occupied, already inhabited (potentially 

creating density-dependency conflicts), or where increasing human-wildlife interactions would occur. 

Traditional Leasing Areas would be afforded the same resource constraints regarding surface-disturbing 

and other disruptive activities until bottom-hole density exceeds one well per 160 acres when adjacent to 

existing Intensively Developed Fields or if designated by the RMG in consultation with the PFO. This 

objective encompasses the entire planning area except for the WSAs, which are administratively 

unavailable. Sage-grouse and elk in particular have not been found to adapt to high levels of disturbance. 

This action does not leave room for extraordinary circumstances (e.g., West Nile virus outbreak in sagegrouse) and the potential wildlife protection mechanisms that could be needed because of them. At the 

landscape level of planning (reserving Traditional Leasing Areas or the possibility of conversion to 

Intensively Developed Fields), mitigation may not be enough to maintain habitat functionality and species 

diversity. 

The planning area would be open to geophysical exploration and operations except where prohibited by 

law. Geophysical activities in WSAs would be determined on a case-by-case basis subject to the WSA 

IMP. The presence of geophysical activity in these areas would displace wildlife for the duration of the 

operation or cause avian nest abandonment. These activities could alter sensitive habitats and cause 

habitat fragmentation through the use of thumper trucks and buggy drills. 

Issuing new commercial SRPs for the Green and New Fork Rivers SRMA would increase human 

presence in the area and could impact fisheries by degrading water quality and riparian habitat and 

disturbing sensitive vegetation. New recreational developments and increased human presence could 

result in habitat fragmentation, wildlife disturbance, and watershed degradation from soil erosion and 

stream sedimentation. 

This alternative would open the Boulder Lake, Scab Creek, and Upper Green River SRMAs to oil and gas 

leasing with CSU restrictions. These restrictions could be suitable for recreational purposes; however, 

4-234 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

they may not be adequate to control habitat fragmentation sufficiently to maintain crucial big game winter 

ranges or other wildlife resources. 

The use of snowmobiles on winter range could lead to wildlife disturbance, causing additional stress, 

depletion of energy reserves, and possible death. These seasonal closures would help to protect wildlife 

from human-caused disturbance resulting in offspring mortality and habitat degradation and would 

improve water quality by preventing vegetation loss or soil erosion. 

Impacts from transportation and access management would be more extensive under this alternative than 

under the other alternatives. New road development would increase with the increased projections for oil 

and gas development and the emphasis on providing needed and appropriate ingress, egress, and access 

routes to and across public lands. This is a more intensive management strategy that would provide more 

opportunities to ensure that wildlife and their habitats are not affected by excessive human use. 

OHV Open areas would be much smaller than under Alternative 1. Habitat degradation would occur in 

these areas, including soil compaction and erosion, disturbance to vegetation, and physical dispersal and 

abandonment of wildlife from the area. Limiting OHV use in the Desert General Use area to existing 

roads and trails would reduce impacts from uncontrolled OHV use on 237,360 acres. 

Areas where OHV use is limited to designated roads and trails (as opposed to existing roads) would 

include the Lake Mountain WSA, Trapper’s Point ACEC, and Native American burial sites. This would 

limit proliferation of new trails and the potential for harassment of wildlife and degradation of wildlife 

habitat. This action would help to eliminate excess roads, reducing fragmentation of habitats in these 

areas. 

Motorized travel would be allowed on the Pinedale Pathway. This area is within a mule deer migration 

bottleneck, and human-caused disturbances could alter the migration pattern or cause additional stresses 

during a period of high energy usage. During the spring migration, the energy (fat) reserves are most 

depleted, creating a higher potential for deleterious impacts, including fetal abortions. 

The primary objective for vegetation under this alternative would be to prevent the spread of noxious 

weeds and reduce the total area impacted. This would improve the health of wildlife habitat by allowing 

native vegetation to return to these areas. Special Status Plant Species would be maintained at a level that 

ensures long-term sustainability. This would not ensure the future pioneering of new habitats by 

protecting suitable habitat; however, federally listed plant species would be protected in accordance with 

the ESA, and known locations of sensitive species would be avoidance areas for surface-disturbing 

activities, providing protection to known populations. 

This alternative allows discharge and point source discharge that is in compliance with WDEQ standards 

and encourages use of treated produced water (including irrigation of reclamation). If discharge is 

permitted in sagebrush systems, the integrity of the habitat could be compromised. This could be 

especially destructive in ephemeral drainages that contain suitable habitat for pygmy rabbits. The 

irrigation of reclamation to assist in habitat recovery could be beneficial in the short term; however, this 

planning area is in a desert community with a low annual precipitation. There is a possibility that the 

vegetative community would not be able to withstand the natural conditions after the irrigation equipment 

is removed, which could create a sink for the wildlife that subsequently moves into those areas. 

Construction activities in flood plains and wetland/riparian areas would be allowed. These areas would 

have to meet PFC standards, but habitat for sage-grouse brood rearing, yellow-billed cuckoo nesting, 

crucial moose winter range, and pygmy rabbit denning might not be achieved when PFC is established. In 

Pinedale RMP 4-235 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

addition, the potential to increase the range of these species would be reduced or eliminated by the change 

in habitat function. 

Wildland fire suppression activities in the planning area would be based on the AMR, with a high priority 

for response to wildland fires and for fuels reduction in areas of mixed land ownership and urban and 

industrial interfaces. This would be beneficial to species that do not require a climax forested vegetative 

community. However, species such as the Canada lynx require these habitat components to sustain the 

snowshoe hare prey base and maintain denning habitat. 

Prescribed fire and mechanical treatments would be done to reduce hazardous fuels within the urban and 

industrial interface. In the long term, this tactic would improve forest health for many wildlife species 

such as mule deer and elk that summer and winter in these habitats. This in turn would be beneficial for 

predator species such as grizzly bears and gray wolves. Rehabilitation efforts such as fencing could 

impede movement or create an advantage for predator species. 

The use of fire-retardant chemicals throughout the planning area could cause mortality to fish and other 

aquatic life if contact with water sources occurs. 

This alternative would place increased emphasis on maximizing commodity production rather than on the 

habitat requirements for wildlife and fish. Sage-grouse would be disturbed during all stages of their 

development, affecting reproduction rates, nest success, and chick survival. Surface-disturbing activities 

would be designed to limit impacts within 2 miles of active sage-grouse leks; however, this does not 

account for habitat loss. These actions would lead to further sage-grouse abandonment of these areas. 

There would be no management emphasis for maintaining big game crucial winter habitat or protecting 

parturition ranges. This could cause substantial habitat degradation and force big game to relocate to other 

habitat areas. Elk feedgrounds would be eliminated on public lands and would be available for oil and gas 

leasing. This would likely increase pressure on the feedgrounds on state lands, increase pressure on 

private lands (haystacks), increase pressure on the native winter range on the Wyoming Range, and 

increase elk-human interactions (e.g., vehicle collisions) and could lead to a die-off the first year from 

starvation. By eliminating the feedgrounds, the elk would also not herd together throughout the winter, 

potentially decreasing the brucellosis transmission rates. Because feedgrounds located on state and private 

lands would continue to operate, the impacts of concentrating elk through the winter and the facilitation 

of disease transmission, including brucellosis, chronic wasting disease, and bovine tuberculosis, would 

continue, although possibly at a lesser rate. 

Activities would be designed to prevent take of raptors. However, continued disturbances could cause a 

raptor not to return to its nesting territory the following year or to initiate nesting. 

Surface-disturbing activities would be allowed and would be subject to mitigation to minimize impacts on 

Special Status Species. In some cases, avoidance is the only method of mitigation that would ensure the 

continued propagation of the species. 

Restricting instream activities from June 1 to August 15 in streams supporting populations of CRCT 

(streams providing habitat or flow) would reduce impacts (e.g., sedimentation and habitat manipulation) 

on CRCT at crucial life stages. 

The emphasis on land use for commodity production would cause an increase in habitat fragmentation, in 

the amount of marginal habitats, and in competition between generalist and specialist wildlife species. 

Specialist species could be out-competed or driven out of preferred habitats. Areas focused on commodity 

production would have less diverse wildlife populations. 

4-236 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

Impacts on wildlife and fish in the Rock Creek area would be similar to those under Alternative 1. 

However, under this alternative, the Deadline-Graphite elk winter range area would be open to oil and gas 

leasing with seasonal limitations. These authorizations could potentially increase human-caused 

disturbance of elk on crucial winter range. 

The Trapper’s Point ACEC (550 acres) would be managed to preserve relevant and important 

characteristics of the area, including cultural and historic features, viability of the big game migration 

bottleneck, and important livestock trailing use. Wildlife and fish would benefit from the management 

prescriptions, which serve to protect and improve the vegetation, forage and cover, watershed health, and 

habitat continuity. This area is a vital migration route for mule deer and pronghorn. Closure of the ACEC 

to surface-disturbing activities, mineral leasing, and OHV use would eliminate long-term habitat losses 

and help ensure the viability of the big game migration corridor. The protected area might not be of 

sufficient size under this alternative to fully protect the migration bottleneck area. 

No ACEC would be designated in the New Fork Potholes area. Allowing development in this area would 

impact unique pothole riparian habitat. There would be a loss of migratory waterfowl nesting and broodrearing habitat. The functionality of the potholes area as a stopover point for migrating waterfowl would 

also be reduced. Because this area provides habitat to a large population of migratory birds, allowing 

development in this area may result in increased “take” (as defined by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act). 

Impacts on wildlife and fish in the WSAs would be similar to those under Alternative 1, except that OHV 

use in the Lake Mountain WSA would be limited to designated roads as opposed to existing roads and 

trails as under Alternative 1. This additional limitation would reduce vehicle presence in the WSA and 

related disturbances to wildlife and fisheries. 

4.17.6 Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 3. 

Impacts on wildlife and fisheries from paleontology and VRM actions would be the same as those under 

Alternative 1. 

This alternative would provide the greatest opportunity to indirectly maintain habitat continuity and 

integrity from surface-disturbing activities and decrease human-associated disturbances by placing greater 

restrictions on surface occupancy near cultural resources. 

This alternative proposes to treat more acres per year than do Alternatives 1 and 2; the goals are more 

oriented toward restoring mixed conifer and aspen stands to their historic range of variability than toward 

commercial sales. Although the intent is to restore a healthy forest ecosystem and to make the stand fire 

resilient, some intermixed stands of old growth are needed for wildlife diversity. Wildlife would initially 

be displaced by a treatment and, depending on the forage availability over time, could temporarily 

abandon these areas. Similar impacts under Alternative 2 would occur over a shorter time frame. 

Impacts on wildlife and fisheries from lands and realty management actions would be less under this 

alternative than under Alternatives 1 and 2, because proposed withdrawal acreage (65,750 acres) would 

be increased and potential disposal acreage (790 acres) would be decreased. In general, withdrawal 

actions would help to maintain and protect wildlife and fish habitats, because withdrawn areas would be 

protected from certain surface-disturbing activities. Conversely, disposal of lands could impact wildlife 

and fish species and their habitats by disrupting migration routes, crucial winter range, calving and 

Pinedale RMP 4-237 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

fawning, or brooding and nesting areas. Acquisition of lands in migration routes and bottlenecks would 

result in the long-term sustainability of habitat through maintenance of wildlife migration routes. 

The acreage of ROW avoidance and exclusion areas would be the largest under this alternative. No 

exceptions for activities in ROW exclusion areas would be allowed. Exclusion restrictions would affect 

wildlife by preventing surface-disturbing activities that are detrimental to resource values in areas of 

potential sensitive habitats and by reducing the potential for habitat fragmentation or increased humancaused disturbance. 

Limiting linear ROW development to existing routes would protect habitat quality, minimize 

fragmentation in sensitive areas, and help to protect riparian areas. Limiting communication sites to 

existing developed sites and requiring self-supporting, non-guyed towers would help to minimize the 

amount of vegetation and wildlife habitats disturbed by site construction and associated activities and 

provide some protection against potential avian collisions. 

Prohibiting wind energy development in raptor concentration areas, along neotropical bird migration 

routes, within 3 miles of greater sage-grouse leks, and in other wildlife-sensitive habitats would minimize 

the number of bird and bat fatalities resulting from collisions with wind turbines (NREL 1995), as well as 

potential habitat fragmentation and the permanent abandonment of these areas. 

This alternative would provide a greater emphasis on actions directed toward range health. The reduction 

or elimination of grazing in Intensively Developed Fields would provide some benefit to wildlife by 

reducing competition for forage in these areas. However, the impacts from industrial development would 

partially or completely counter any benefits derived from the elimination of livestock grazing. Even with 

forage unused by livestock, industrial development and human activity and presence could cause wildlife 

to avoid these areas entirely. 

Improving wildlife habitat, watersheds, and riparian areas while maintaining range condition at, or 

improving range condition toward the potential for the ecological site would increase the quality and 

quantity of forage for wildlife and livestock. 

Reducing active AUMs to a number based on each grazing permittee’s actual use since 1988 would lower 

the number of livestock grazing on public lands over time, reducing competition for forage between 

livestock and wildlife. Unallocated forage would be allocated to other resources such as wildlife and 

recreation, increasing wildlife cover and forage. While these areas tend to be small and scattered, some 

benefits to wildlife habitat would be realized. 

Adjusting grazing seasons in allotments containing elk parturition areas to begin after June 1 would 

reduce the potential for brucellosis transmission, contributing to the management of a healthy livestock 

herd and reducing the need for drastic elk management actions. 

Prohibiting the placement of mineral supplements within one-quarter mile of live water and 

wetland/riparian areas, as well as sage-grouse leks, would prevent stream bank erosion, vegetation loss, 

and nutrient loading in surface water; preserve aquatic habitats; and prevent the degradation of sagegrouse nesting habitats. 

This alternative would afford the greatest opportunity to provide the necessary mitigation measures and 

habitat requirements for wildlife in a planning area with high oil and gas development. 

Approximately 78,270 acres would be considered Intensively Developed Fields, available for intensive oil 

and gas leasing, exploration, development, and production. Development would be regulated to conserve 

4-238 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

important wildlife habitats; however, exceptions would be considered to allow year-round drilling and 

development operations on existing leases in the Jonah and Anticline Fields that are currently encumbered 

by seasonal restrictions. These considerations would be subject to NEPA analysis and the operator 

implementing offsetting mitigation. This exception would not apply to federally listed species or avian 

species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). Development is still taking place 

in some important habitats such as crucial big game winter range and sage-grouse habitats. This approach 

could provide needed tools to reduce human-caused disturbance and additional habitat fragmentation; at 

this level of development, timing limitations alone are not adequate to maintain the specialized wildlife 

species in these fields. 

Approximately 420,780 acres would be Traditional Leasing Areas, subject to timing limitations, CSU and 

NSO stipulations, and COAs, as well as additional restrictions established for surface-disturbing and other 

disruptive activities (Map 2-3). Lease stipulations help to mitigate adverse impacts on wildlife and fish 

during breeding and parturition periods to ensure reproductive success and survival of young, reduce 

winter mortality associated with increased stress caused by human-induced disturbance, and reduce 

private landowner conflicts caused by displaced animals. BMPs would also be applied to mitigate impacts 

on sensitive habitats and other resources in areas or situations where timing limitations are not adequately 

mitigating impacts on wildlife. 

Approximately 641,820 acres (Map 2-8) would be categorized as Unavailable Areas for oil and gas 

leasing. Existing leases would be subject to the existing lease terms and stipulations, and BMPs would be 

applied to mitigate impacts on sensitive habitats. These areas would become important refuge areas as 

development continues, particularly if more areas become intensively developed. 

It is estimated that 5,209 new wells (3,736 vertical and 1,473 directional wells) would be developed, 

resulting in 31,139 acres of short-term disturbance and 13,325 acres of long-term disturbance. 

Stipulations and limitations would limit the pace at which new wells could be developed, giving an 

opportunity to maintain areas of critical habitat during periods of development and human-caused 

disturbance when mitigation efforts are not enough to maintain wildlife populations. 

Prohibiting the use of explosive charges would prevent adverse impacts on wildlife from noise and other 

disturbances. This protection would reduce alteration or loss of wildlife and fish habitats and help prevent 

erosion and sedimentation in areas with sensitive soils or steep slopes. Prohibiting geophysical vehicle 

travel in developed recreational sites and NSO areas would protect sensitive vegetation and habitats and 

minimize wildlife disturbance, preventing impacts such as increased energy expenditure from dispersal, 

avoidance, and behavioral change owing to human presence. 

The planning area would be closed to coal leasing; new mineral withdrawals would be pursued to protect 

wildlife habitat; and salable minerals activity would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These actions 

provide the greatest opportunity of all of the alternatives to prevent surface disturbances, human-caused 

disturbance, and habitat-fragmenting activities in wildlife habitats. 

Under this alternative, the Boulder Lake, Scab Creek, and Green and New Fork River SRMAs would be 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing, preventing further development and maintaining the existing sensitive 

habitats (i.e., crucial winter ranges, parturition areas, and avian nesting and roosting areas). 

Minimizing and consolidating the road infrastructure in the planning area would minimize the possibility 

of creating islands of isolated habitat. These areas can cause genetic isolation for species with small home 

ranges, such as the pygmy rabbit. Vehicle collisions in migration corridors and other areas would also be 

reduced. 

Pinedale RMP 4-239 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

Limiting the number of access points to county and state roads, designating common ROW routes, and 

designing new developments to minimize the number and miles of new roads and the main access points 

to new fields would help avoid creating islands of unusable wildlife habitat. It would also minimize 

human disturbance and truck traffic in sensitive habitats. Habitat fragmentation would be prevented and 

larger tracts of suitable habitat for wildlife would be maintained, allowing typical feeding, breeding, and 

sheltering functions. 

Impacts on wildlife and fisheries from OHV use would be less than under Alternatives 1 or 2. 

Approximately 30,350 acres would be closed to motorized access year round. Limitation to designated 

roads and trails in 140,610 acres would help to control OHV use in sensitive wildlife areas and prevent 

habitat degradation and erosion. This would alleviate the potential for damage to other resources (e.g., 

destruction of vegetation, increased erosion) and the proliferation of unauthorized access. It would also 

protect vegetation, prevent additional erosion that could lead to sediment loading of streams, and alleviate 

wildlife habitat fragmentation and wildlife disturbances that could lead to dispersal or avoidance of 

otherwise suitable habitats. 

No open OHV areas would be designated. This would be beneficial in preventing the degradation and 

eventual abandonment of wildlife habitat. 

Prohibiting motorized snow vehicles in big game crucial winter range, WSAs, and the CCC Ponds ACEC 

would help preserve sensitive wildlife habitats and decrease disturbance during critical periods. 

The elimination of chemical control methods for noxious weeds could inhibit weed control, and the use of 

mechanical methods could be less effective. This could retain wildlife habitat in a less-than-desired state 

for a longer period of time. However, restriction of the use of chemical vegetation and weed control 

treatments would eliminate herbicide drift outside of treatment areas and prevent herbicide loading in 

watersheds. This alternative would provide greater protection of sensitive environmental resources and 

wildlife and fish habitat. 

Vegetation treatment actions would mimic natural systems of succession, creating habitat niches for a 

greater diversity of wildlife. Prescriptions would serve to help achieve the potential of ecological sites, 

which would help to maintain and improve wildlife and fish habitats. 

Actions to protect Special Status Plant Species and their habitats from surface disturbance (e.g., ROW 

exclusion areas, mineral location withdrawal, geophysical surveying, limiting vehicle use to existing 

roads and trails, use of explosives) would assist in not only maintaining their current sustainability but 

would also expand their ranges, potentially preventing a future listing action. 

Watershed management actions would assist in the prevention of degradation of sensitive soils, nutrient 

loading, and habitat fragmentation and reduce potential for surface runoff and stream sedimentation or 

contamination. 

Restricting instream activities to June 1 through August 15 in streams supporting populations of CRCT 

(streams providing habitat or flow) would reduce impacts (e.g., sedimentation and habitat manipulation) 

to this species during crucial life stages. 

This alternative would place the greatest emphasis on maintenance and enhancement of aquatic and 

wildlife resources through protection and enhancement of soils, water, vegetation, wildlife, fish, and other 

renewable resources, while providing for mineral extraction and energy development. Wildlife species 

would receive the greatest protection during sensitive life cycles (Appendices 3 and 18). 

4-240 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

Impacts on wildlife and fisheries from fire and fuels management would be similar to those under 

Alternative 2; however, Alternative 3 would be slightly more restrictive in some areas. Fire would be 

reinstated to its natural role in the ecosystem, and other identified resource actions and management 

objectives would consider and accommodate fire management prescriptions where possible and feasible. 

This would allow for more natural succession of vegetative communities to take place, providing for more 

diversified wildlife habitat. Temporary displacement of some wildlife species would likely occur, but 

modified fire suppression would serve to improve wildlife habitat over the long term. 

The absence of chemical management tools would help to preserve vegetation, water quality, and habitat 

integrity. This management strategy could result in less control of vegetation succession, leading to an 

increase in climax communities that could increase wildland fires; but would also be beneficial to wildlife 

species that require those habitat types (e.g., snowshoe hare and Canada lynx). In the event that a 

wildland fire does occur, the accumulation of fuels in these communities would cause these fires to burn 

at higher temperatures. Hot fires could result in sterilization of the soils, which would increase the time 

period for successful revegetation. This would reduce habitat function over a longer period of time. 

Increased runoff from burned areas could increase stream sedimentation and consequently impact fish and 

aquatic habitats. 

Prohibiting the use of fire suppression chemicals, including foaming agents and surfactants, within 500 

feet of surface water sources would prevent mortality of CRCT and other sensitive fish and amphibians. 

Aquatic species are particularly sensitive to chemicals because of the permeability of their tissue for 

respiratory functions and movement. In addition, hydrologic functions would be protected, maintaining 

habitats for other wildlife species, including moose, waterfowl, and amphibians. 

Avoiding the transfer of water from sources that are known to contain whirling disease to those that do 

not, would help to contain the spread of that disease. 

This alternative would provide the greatest protection mechanisms of all the alternatives by incorporating 

the most up-to-date research conducted within the planning area. The strategies outlined could provide the 

greatest success in maintaining and improving habitat quality and function, as well as species diversity 

within the planning area. 

Intensively Developed Fields would contain less acreage and less sage-grouse lekking, nesting, broodrearing, and winter concentration areas than under Alternatives 2 and 4. Development in the Intensively 

Developed Fields could exceed the thresholds of significant habitat requirements, and mitigation might 

not be adequate to maintain sage-grouse in those habitats. This alternative provides fewer acres to face 

this possibility. 

Traditional Leasing Areas would also encompass fewer acres than under the other alternatives. 

Traditional Leasing and Unavailable Areas under this alternative would include actions that incorporate 

the findings of the most up-to-date research and would provide the greatest potential for sage-grouse 

management in areas with mineral development. 

The impacts of maintaining elk feedgrounds would be similar to those under Alternative 1 and would 

include maintaining elk at their existing herd numbers, prolonging the necessity of feedgrounds, and 

maintaining the frequency of elk inoculated with the brucellosis virus and the susceptibility of 

concentrated elk herds to other diseases, including chronic wasting disease and bovine tuberculosis. 

Intensively Developed Fields would encompass a smaller area (78,270 acres) that only affects mule deer 

and pronghorn that winter on the Mesa, minimizing the number of herds affected by impacts associated 

Pinedale RMP 4-241 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

with mineral development (i.e., habitat fragmentation, human-caused disturbances, and vehicle 

collisions). 

In Traditional Leasing Areas, actions under Alternative 3 would protect big game species during sensitive 

time periods and minimize human presence and disturbance. 

The Upper Green River bottleneck area would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. No new main 

arterial access routes would be permitted in the Wind River Front MA, and the Deadline-Graphite elk 

winter range area (Map 2-3) would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing, preventing narrowing of 

migration bottlenecks and fragmentation of native elk winter range. 

In Traditional Leasing Areas, actions would assist in maintaining sensitive species populations amidst 

development. These species do not necessarily occur within all of the areas designated as Traditional 

Leasing. Most of the known occurrences of white-tailed prairie dog towns exist in the Intensively 

Developed Fields and are therefore not subject to these more rigorous protection measures. 

Actions to conserve sagebrush habitats would provide a larger number of contiguous acres of sagebrush 

habitat required for sagebrush-obligate species. Transportation planning and the piping of condensate and 

produced water would limit the amount of vehicle traffic along with the associated noise and additional 

human presence. 

Actions to minimize fragmentation would prevent further access into areas not easily reached, resulting in 

less human disturbance and habitat degradation or fragmentation (from newly pioneered roads). The 

elimination of exceptions to wildlife COAs would protect populations from disturbance pressures during 

sensitive time periods. 

Restricting instream activities from June 1 through August 15 in streams supporting populations of CRCT 

(streams providing habitat or flow) would reduce impacts (e.g., sedimentation and habitat manipulation) 

to this species at crucial life stages. 

Prohibiting chemical use for the purpose of fisheries management would eliminate the chance of 

accidental fish mortality and misuse of chemicals, but would also greatly restrict opportunities to manage 

fish populations and reintroduce CRCT to their historic habitats. 

In Intensively Developed Fields, take of raptors would be prohibited during the nesting season but would 

not eliminate future disturbance during the courtship and nest initiation periods. Use of migratory bird 

exclusion devices on sediment, evaporation, or other types of pits containing harmful substances or 

chemicals would reduce bird mortality. 

Conducting surveys for raptor activity within 1 mile of proposed projects would appropriately incorporate 

the distance associated with nest disturbance for the majority of avian species found in the planning area. 

In Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas, stipulations and mitigation actions would 

sufficiently prevent impacts on raptors. One of the primary mechanisms of protecting raptors from take is 

restricting activities that promote the abandonment of eggs or of hatchlings or fledglings, before they are 

ready to leave the nest and independently find food and shelter. The timing restriction is designed to 

provide protection from such disturbances that would prevent the successful fledging of offspring. 

Managing the Rock Creek ACEC as a ROW exclusion area, where ROWs would not be allowed except to 

benefit the CRCT or elk habitat, would maintain habitat continuity, prevent erosion and sedimentation, 

and prevent invasive plants from being introduced. Other management actions for the ACEC that would 

4-242 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

reduce the potential for wildlife disturbance or habitat degradation and fragmentation include prohibiting 

geophysical exploration activities, prohibiting mineral leasing and exploration and development of 

locatable minerals, eliminating livestock grazing, and closing the area to OHV use. All management 

prescriptions under this alternative for the Rock Creek ACEC outside of the watershed and WSA would 

be more restrictive than under the other alternatives and serve to protect elk winter range and improve 

vegetation and cover, forage, watershed health, and habitat continuity. 

In the Beaver Creek ACEC, prohibiting surface disturbance (including road construction) within 1,000 

feet of streams and on slopes greater than 15% would provide greater protection to wildlife habitats than 

under Alternatives 1 or 2. All vehicle use, including geophysical exploration vehicles, would be limited to 

designated roads and trails. This would prevent the pioneering of new roads and degradation of vegetative 

communities that normally occurs when travel ventures away from established roads or trails. Restrictions 

on timber harvest activity would allow for natural succession to occur, and for dying trees to provide 

habitat for bats, owls, and cavity-nesting birds and animals. Lynx habitats and elk winter habitats would 

be preserved. The Beaver Creek ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area, which would help to 

preserve unique visual resources and benefit wildlife by restricting any development in these areas that 

would be disruptive to habitat. In addition, this would prevent wildlife disturbance from human presence, 

structures, and noise. Preventing new road alignments from being developed in undisturbed areas would 

protect existing wildlife habitat by maintaining vegetation and habitat continuity, limiting runoff and 

sedimentation of streams, and maintaining habitat integrity. 

This alternative would provide the largest amount of acreage to protect the Trapper’s Point migration 

corridor. This would maintain the integrity of the habitat function and prevent further disturbances to the 

mule deer and pronghorn that have used this area for hundreds of years. 

The New Fork Potholes ACEC would be managed to protect unique pothole wildlife habitat, including 

habitat for migratory birds (e.g., the trumpeter swan and numerous waterfowl species). Closing the area to 

leasing, disposal, and mineral location operations would protect this area from surface disturbance and 

habitat fragmentation. Migratory waterfowl, trumpeter swans, migratory shorebirds, sandhill cranes, and 

migratory land bird nesting, brood-rearing, and foraging habitat would be protected from surface 

disturbance, noise, habitat fragmentation, and changes in hydrology. OHV use would be limited to 

designated roads and trails, with seasonal closures during crucial winter periods. This restriction would 

help to prevent the pioneering of new roads, which could accelerate erosion, destroy vegetation, and cause 

habitat fragmentation. 

Management prescriptions in the White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC would protect habitat for white-tailed 

prairie dogs and associated species (e.g., black-footed ferrets, burrowing owls, and mountain plovers). 

Management prescriptions for the Miller Mountain MA would affect wildlife and fisheries by protecting 

and maintaining vegetation (e.g., forage and cover), habitat continuity, and watershed health. In addition, 

erosion and sedimentation events would be minimized by preventing disturbances on slopes greater than 

15%. Restrictions on timber harvest activity would allow for natural succession to occur and for dying 

trees to provide habitat for bats, owls, and cavity-nesting birds and animals. These trees would also 

provide nutrients for saplings to take their place. The MA would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing, 

preventing surface disturbance and habitat fragmentation and day-to-day disruption of wildlife. OHV use 

would be limited to designated roads and trails; no net increase in miles of road would be allowed in the 

area; and no roads would be developed in talus slope areas. These actions would eliminate unnecessary 

roads, curtail road proliferation, reduce fragmentation of wildlife habitat, prevent additional habitat 

degradation, and eliminate potential competition between lynx and coyotes (coyotes would not normally 

use heavily timbered areas but would have access to more areas as more roads were constructed). 

Pinedale RMP 4-243 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

The Ross Butte ACEC would be managed to protect fragile soils and watersheds, sensitive plant species, 

and visual values. Wildlife and fisheries would be indirectly affected through improved vegetation and 

cover, forage, watershed health, and habitat continuity. OHV use within the Ross Butte MA would be 

limited to designated roads and trails. This would eliminate unnecessary roads, decreasing erosion, 

contribution of sediment to the Green River, and habitat fragmentation. It would also reduce wildlife 

disturbance during seasonally sensitive periods, as portions of the area include mule deer and pronghorn 

crucial winter ranges. Surface occupancy on erosive soils and in sensitive plant species habitats would be 

prohibited. Erosion and sedimentation events would be reduced by prohibiting surface disturbances on 

slopes greater than 10%. This would protect these areas from development and protect sensitive 

vegetative communities. The ACEC would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing, protecting habitats from 

surface disturbance and fragmentation. No new communications sites would be allowed within the Ross 

Butte area. This would help to minimize the amount of vegetation and wildlife habitats disturbed by site 

construction and provide some protection against potential avian collisions with towers or guy-wires. 

Wildlife and fish would benefit from management actions in the CCC Ponds ACEC that serve to protect 

and improve vegetation, forage and cover, watershed health, and habitat continuity. Establishment of the 

ACEC would help to preserve the mule deer migration bottleneck that passes through the area. Since this 

area is a mule deer migration bottleneck and wintering area, OHV closures and seasonal limitations would 

help to limit the potential for adverse impacts during the sensitive winter season, and would also prevent 

larger herd impacts resulting from elimination of vital migration routes. Closing the ACEC to oil and gas 

leasing and minerals location would preserve the recreational experience; prevent fragmentation and 

degradation of wildlife habitat; and preserve areas used by wildlife for feeding, breeding, and sheltering. 

Wildlife and fish would be affected by management actions in the Wind River Front MA that protect and 

improve vegetation, forage and cover, watershed health, and habit. 

Impacts on wildlife and fisheries in the WSAs would be similar to those under Alternative 1, except that 

the Lake Mountain WSA would be closed to motorized access. This would prevent habitat fragmentation 

and degradation caused by the pioneering of new roads and disturbance from human presence. 

Designation of the East Fork River WSR would prevent wildlife habitat fragmentation and degradation 

and disturbance of wildlife, and preserve areas used by wildlife for feeding, breeding, and sheltering. 

Habitat continuity would be maintained throughout the river corridor, providing nesting, foraging, and 

brood-rearing habitat. 

The Scab Creek (860 acres) and Silver Creek WSR Units (1,350 acres) would be managed under a 

tentative classification of “wild.” Habitat continuity would be maintained throughout the river corridor, 

providing nesting, foraging, and brood-rearing habitat. 

The Green River WSR Unit (7,100 acres) would prevent habitat fragmentation and degradation and 

disturbance of wildlife and preserve areas used by wildlife for feeding, breeding, and sheltering. 

4.17.7 Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be expected from 

Alternative 4. 

The impacts on wildlife and fisheries from coal, locatable and salable minerals, and the Rock Creek and 

Beaver Creek ACECs would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. 

4-244 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

The impacts from OHV Open areas would be similar to, but somewhat less than those described under 

Alternative 3. Impacts on wildlife and fish from cultural resource management, forest management, 

access management and reclamation of access routes, and wildland fire management would be similar to 

those under Alternative 3. Impacts on wildlife and fisheries in the New Fork Potholes ACEC, Lake 

Mountain WSA, and WSR Units would be the same as those under Alternative 3. 

Acquisition of lands in migration routes and bottlenecks would result in the long-term sustainability of 

habitat and management continuity. 

Disposal of lands in riparian zones and crucial habitats would impact wildlife and fish species and their 

habitat by potentially disrupting migration routes, crucial winter range, and calving and fawning and 

brooding and nesting areas. 

ROW management actions would provide more management flexibility; however, they would not provide 

the aggressive wildlife habitat management actions under Alternative 3. Placement of ROW corridors 

must consider potential fragmentation of sensitive wildlife habitats; as oil and gas demands increase, 

ROW corridors are stretching across miles of landscape. Water disposal pits even in Intensively 

Developed areas must be managed to prevent a source of West Nile virus (if that virus is ever found in 

Sublette County) and fitted with appropriate anti-avian use devices in case the waters contain pollution or 

high saline levels. 

Limiting communication sites to existing developed sites and requiring self-supporting, nonguyed towers 

would help to minimize the amount of vegetation and wildlife habitats disturbed by site construction and 

associated activities and provide protections against potential avian collisions. 

Prohibiting wind energy development in WSAs, ACECs, and other SD/MAs; along neotropical bird 

migration routes; within 3 miles of greater sage-grouse leks and winter concentration areas; and in raptor 

concentration areas would minimize the number of bird and bat fatalities resulting from collisions with 

wind turbines (NREL 1995). 

Livestock grazing would result in various impacts on wildlife and fisheries. Implementing changes in 

grazing season of use, rotational grazing, and infrastructure development could maintain a higher level of 

habitat function for wildlife and livestock use. Changes in season of use may improve sage-grouse nesting 

cover and prevent more nests from predator detection, resulting in more sage-grouse nest success. 

Allocating some forage increases to wildlife and watershed protection could improve wildlife cover, 

forage, and habitat and mitigate impacts that livestock grazing might otherwise impose on the area. 

Establishment of forage reserves would provide management with the flexibility to rest other allotments 

during drought years, make habitat improvements, control wildland fire, implement prescribed burns, and 

react to other circumstances. 

Water projects developed in crucial winter ranges could lead to a redistribution of livestock on crucial 

winter ranges. This could result in the loss of sufficient forage needed to maintain wildlife fitness during 

winter. A significant loss of forage likely would cause wildlife redistribution to areas that might be 

occupied by other big game herds or to private lands, increasing winter mortality and human conflicts. 

Native winter habitats can only support a limited wildlife population, which could result in reduced 

species diversity or viability. Adjusting grazing seasons in allotments containing elk parturition areas to 

begin after June 1 would reduce the potential for brucellosis transmission. 

Mineral supplement blocks for livestock and wildlife use would be placed in locations that both promote 

proper grazing distribution and prevent inappropriate livestock use on riparian habitat, minimizing soil 

Pinedale RMP 4-245 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

compaction and runoff near surface waters, and could decrease grazing pressure and competition for 

riparian vegetation. 

Closing riparian and other exclosures to grazing by livestock would allow these areas to achieve their 

management objectives (e.g., PFC, potential natural community [PNC], fish and wildlife habitat). 

An estimated 7,136 wells (5,136 vertical wells and 2,000 directional wells) would be developed, resulting 

in 42,180 acres of short-term disturbance and 17,330 acres of long-term disturbance. These estimates are 

close to those projected under Alternative 2, which infers that a high commodity extraction could be 

attained without removing necessary stipulations and COAs important for the perpetuation of wildlife 

resources. 

Actions in Intensively Developed Fields could push the thresholds of big game tolerance to disturbance 

on crucial winter ranges and parturition habitats. These animals will depend more on transitional ranges 

and areas of suboptimal conditions until reclamation efforts are realized. The level of disturbance to the 

soils in these areas may or may not allow reclamation efforts to be successful in bringing the field back to 

preconstruction conditions. Sage-grouse yearlings would continue to move to less disturbed areas outside 

of the Intensively Developed Fields, and other sagebrush-obligate species’ habitats would be subject to 

island effects, which could limit genetic diversity and population distribution. Certain stipulations and 

restrictions are necessary to minimize impacts on sensitive habitats, critical life cycles for wildlife, and 

fragmentation of habitat. This approach to development could provide some alleviation to disturbance 

over time with the appropriate mitigation strategies; however, depending on the rate of development and 

the amount of habitat disturbed at any given time, there could still be localized population declines of 

some species until these mitigation efforts are realized. Expansion of the Intensively 

Developed Fields into the areas adjacent to the existing development will remove the emigration areas for 

these species and further exacerbate population stability and thresholds in undisturbed areas. These 

conditions are the same as under Alternatives 2 and 3. However, this designation under Alternative 4 

includes more of the existing oil and gas fields than under Alternative 3 and less than under Alternative 2; 

therefore, the effects would be greater than under Alternative 3 and less than under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 4 also presents the possibility of removing wildlife timing stipulations on a case-by-case 

basis. This should only be considered in very specific cases and when mitigation measures can be 

implemented in such a way that disturbances can be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 

Otherwise wildlife populations will be affected so profoundly that there may not be opportunities to 

conduct appropriate offsite mitigation or at a minimum maintain genetic corridors between development 

and nondevelopment areas. 

Holloran (2005) studied the spatial relationship of sage-grouse nest distribution to the lek location, within 

3 and 5 km of a lek. Within 3 km of the lek, 45% of the nests were observed, and a 5 km buffer included 

64% of the nests. In addition, nesting habitat beyond 5 km from a lek may be important for population 

viability (Connelly et al. 2000), suggesting that protection should be afforded to these areas (Holloran 

2005). These data indicate that a 2-mile buffer would inadequately protect sage-grouse leks, nesting 

success, and recruitment of yearlings within a Traditional Leasing Area. Research by Kaiser (2006) 

indicates that yearling male sage-grouse are dispersing outside of their natal nesting habitat. If this is a 

response to the disturbances in Intensively Developed Fields, they are likely moving to areas such as 

Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas. The proportion of existing leases in these areas is high. 

Actions in Traditional Leasing Areas would protect wildlife during critical seasons, such as big game 

winter foraging and sage-grouse strutting periods. Lease stipulations would help to mitigate adverse 

impacts on wildlife and fish during breeding and parturition periods to ensure reproductive success and 

survival of young, reduce winter mortality associated with increased stresses brought on by humaninduced disturbances, and reduce private landowner conflicts caused by displaced wildlife. Limiting well 

4-246 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish 

pad densities to one pad per 640-acre section, and other such scenarios would help maintain grouse 

populations in development areas. This benefit would only be maintained as long as the well density per 

section does not increase in that area; if it does, then additional mitigation requirements must be available 

because of how the Traditional Leasing Areas are laid across the landscape. These conditions are the 

same as under Alternatives 2 and 3; however, this designation under Alternative 4 covers a larger area 

than under Alternative 2 and a smaller area than under Alternative 3. Alternative 4 provides a one-half 

mile NSO around portions of the Unavailable Areas to deal with any issues caused by drainage to the 

adjacent private lands. The addition of the one-half mile NSO is a minimal amount of acreage compared 

to the Large Block NSO areas originally proposed. This will only infringe on wildlife habitat if proposals 

to make these areas Intensively Developed fields occur in the future. 

In NSO areas, restrictive stipulations would mitigate impacts of conflicting resource use and could protect 

areas such as big game crucial winter range and sage-grouse lek sites that would be unable to withstand 

any disturbance at any time of year. However, conflicts could arise if these areas are determined to have 

oil or gas drainage issues. There may be opportunities to drill a location off-lease; however, this may not 

always be possible, and depending on the location, impacts could still occur. This designation does not 

include parcels that are already leased within these designated blocks, which could contribute to habitat 

fragmentation or to these areas becoming population sinks if the surrounding habitats are developed. 

In Unavailable Areas, wildlife and fish species and habitat would be protected from surface-disturbing 

activities. There would be fewer acres associated with this protection under Alternative 4 than Alternative 

3. By maintaining larger blocks of habitat as Unavailable Areas, BLM is better able to manage wildlife 

habitats and maintain wildlife populations on federal lands. This would provide more opportunities for 

seed sources to migrate back to Intensively Developed fields once they are producing and reclaimed. As 

leases expire, the lands must be maintained as Unavailable Areas, because of the potential for existing 

leased areas to become Intensively Developed fields. This may result in more pressure for offsite 

mitigation, resulting in projects being conducted farther away from the action area and in more pressure 

for projects on private lands. 

Wildlife habitat would generally be protected only if a mineral commodity is not present for extraction. 

This puts more pressure on habitats outside of Intensively Developed Fields and the surrounding private 

and state lands to provide the necessary resources for wildlife populations to perpetuate. Appropriate 

mitigation and BMPs could alleviate human-caused disturbances; however, for some species, no 

appropriate mitigation practices or BMPs have yet been developed. 

Geophysical actions during wildlife-sensitive time periods would likely disturb wildlife, causing reduced 

fitness, temporary habitat abandonment, or nest abandonment. 

Management actions in the recreation program would limit the pioneering of new roads, limiting 

disturbances to wildlife including habitat alteration, and prevent surface-disturbing and other disruptive 

activities from occurring in these sensitive habitats. 

Soil management actions would be very beneficial for the maintenance of wildlife habitats and the 

recovery of reclaimed sites. 

Additional restrictions for seasonal use of recreational motorized snow equipment would be applied to big 

game crucial winter range, elk feedgrounds, and the Bench Corral area. OHV use on BLM roads would be 

limited on a seasonal basis. These actions would prevent disturbance to big game species during a time 

when maintaining energy reserves and low stress levels are critical and would limit the pioneering of new 

roads, thereby limiting habitat fragmentation, degradation, and wildlife disturbance during critical time 

periods. 

Pinedale RMP 4-247 
Chapter 4—Wildlife & Fish Final EIS 

Managing vegetation according to the ecological site and current inventory techniques would ensure that 

proper vegetation management techniques are used. Many techniques have not been proven to be 

beneficial on the landscape level. Some parts of the planning area may not require vegetation treatments if 

appropriate management techniques are already occurring. Inappropriate vegetation manipulations could 

result in declining wildlife populations and even short-term (40 year) declines could be enough to cause 

large-scale declines in relation to other habitat manipulations or degradations on the landscape. 

Weed control actions would preserve the integrity of native vegetative communities, maintaining their 

value as wildlife habitat. 

Resting treated areas from livestock grazing for a minimum of two full growing seasons, unless shorter 

durations are determined to be adequate through the appropriate level of environmental analysis, would 

allow sufficient time for natural regeneration and prevent impacts from foraging on the treatment. 

Watershed management actions would protect habitat continuity and function for species that require 

these habitats for brood rearing (sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, migratory songbirds), crucial winter 

range (moose), and denning (pygmy rabbits) and would minimize the potential for erosion and associated 

impacts on aquatic habitats by reducing the potential for sedimentation and introduction of hazardous 

materials to water systems. 

NSO restrictions and other actions would be protective of big game migration corridors and elk winter 

ranges, provided that the existing leases within these areas do not face drainage issues. Ultimately, if 

mineral development occurs in these corridors, every effort must be made to prevent further narrowing of 

the migration corridors or degradation of the native elk winter range. 

Impacts of maintaining elk feedgrounds would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 and 

would include maintaining elk at their existing herd numbers, prolonging the necessity of feedgrounds, 

and maintaining the frequency of elk inoculated with the brucellosis virus and the susceptibility of 

concentrated elk herds to other diseases, including chronic wasting disease and bovine tuberculosis. 

Impacts on wildlife and fisheries in the Trapper’s Point ACEC would be similar to those under 

Alternative 3. However, the ACEC would be smaller in size (4,160 acres), which would not provide 

protection to the staging area at Cora Butte. 

Impacts on wildlife and fisheries in the Miller Mountain MA would be largely similar to those under 

Alternative 3. Allowing surface disturbance on somewhat greater slopes and allowing some forest 

management activities could lead to erosion and degradation of some wildlife habitats. This area would be 

available for oil and gas leasing activities with timing limitations; CSU and NSO restrictions would 

protect wildlife from surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities during critical periods and protect 

sensitive areas from habitat destruction. 

Impacts on wildlife and fisheries in the Ross Butte MA would be the same as those under Alternative 3. 

Impacts on wildlife and fisheries in the Wind River Front MA would be similar to those under Alternative 

3, except for the smaller size of the area (201,240 acres). In addition, forest management activities would 

be consistent with the HFRA and MA objectives. Maintaining a more viable ecosystem that can be 

sustained after a fire event is beneficial to the system as a whole. 

4-248 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—SD/MAs 

4.18 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

This section describes potential impacts on ACECs and other SD/MAs from management actions 

included in Chapter 2. There are two previously existing and as many as seven potential ACECs, 

depending on the alternative, as discussed in Chapter 2 and illustrated on Maps 2-16, 2-19, 2-26, and 2-

33. In addition, there are two previously existing WSAs that are common to all alternatives and four 

potential WSR areas under Alternatives 3 and 4. 

4.18.1 Assumptions 

The analysis was based on the following assumptions: 

• WSAs in the planning area would continue to be managed under WSA IMP H-8550-1 until such 

time as Congress either designates all or portions of the WSAs as wilderness or releases them 

from any further consideration for wilderness, and the lands revert back to general land use 

management. 

• Any resource-dependent activity approved in a WSA would be rigorously managed to ensure that 

it would not impair the area’s wilderness characteristics or its suitability for designation as 

wilderness. 

• Wilderness Interim Management is subject to Valid Existing Rights and the Grandfather Clause 

(see IMP) under all of the alternatives. 

• Although areas considered or proposed for withdrawal would require approval by Congress, this 

analysis assumes the area would be approved and withdrawn. 

4.18.2 Methods of Analysis 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources within the 

planning area, a review of existing literature, and the professional judgment of experts within and outside 

BLM. Spatial analysis was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 computer software. Effects are 

quantified where possible. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. 

Impacts are sometimes described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate. 

4.18.3 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

FLPMA defines an ACEC as an area— 

“Within the public lands where special management attention is required (when such 

areas are developed or used, or where no development is required) to protect and 

prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and 

wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from 

natural hazards.” (FLPMA § 103(a)). 

The analysis of effects on ACECs from the implementation of management actions is limited to the 

protection of and prevention of damage to the relevant and important values. The relevant and important 

values and associated threats are documented in the Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria for 

Existing and Proposed ACECs, BLM Pinedale Field Office. Impacts on resources not associated with the 

Pinedale RMP 4-249 
Chapter 4—SD/MAs Final EIS 

relevance and importance criteria are discussed under the specific resource heading in this chapter. For 

example, sensitive plants are not part of the relevance and importance criteria for the Beaver Creek 

ACEC; any impacts on sensitive plants in the Beaver Creek area would be covered in the impact analysis 

for the vegetation section, not in the ACEC analysis. A separate impact analysis was conducted for each 

ACEC, because each area is unique and has different potential threats and relevant and important values. 

The analysis focuses on how the management actions proposed under each alternative address the 

identified threats. 

In concert with BLM guidelines, the impact analysis considers management actions that “defend or guard 

against damage or loss” to the relevant and important values. The management actions associated with the 

alternatives could either degrade or protect the relevant and important values within each ACEC and 

either cause or prevent irreparable damage to such values. Degradation of relevant and important values 

would primarily occur from surface-disturbing activities, such as those associated with construction of 

ROWs (e.g., pipelines, transmission lines, communication lines), construction of oil and gas facilities 

(e.g., well pads, reserve pits, roads), and livestock range improvements. Other activities, such as 

vegetation manipulation and OHV recreation use, could affect relevant and important values by removing 

soil and vegetation and thereby creating intrusions on the landscape. 

Protection of relevant and important values would primarily result from the implementation of 

management actions designed to protect natural resources. Management of soil, water, vegetation, and 

fish and wildlife would generally limit the extent of surface-disturbing activities and associated vegetation 

removal and facility construction. This is generally achieved through the designation of protective 

buffers, area closures, restrictions on surface use, and the implementation of mitigation measures. 

Rock Creek 

The relevant values to be managed in the Rock Creek area include important scenic values; habitat for an 

endemic, genetically pure population of CRCT; and native, crucial elk winter range for an elk population 

that is not feedground-dependent. The Rock Creek area would be designated an ACEC under Alternatives 

1, 3, and 4 and would have no special designation under Alternative 2. 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

In all alternatives, the Rock Creek area would be contained mostly or wholly within the Lake Mountain 

WSA (Map 2-16). Impacts on the Rock Creek area from management within the WSA would be similar 

to those described for the Lake Mountain WSA in Section 4.18.4. Adverse effects on CRCT, aquatic 

habitat, and elk habitat would not result from surface-disturbing activities within the Lake Mountain 

WSA area. Management of the WSA as a ROW exclusion area and closure of the WSA to oil and gas 

leasing and development and other development activities would preserve the scenic and wildlife habitat 

values of the area. 

Limitations on fire suppression vehicles and overall terrain limitations would make fire suppression 

activities more difficult and could increase the extent of burned acres in the Rock Creek drainage. This 

could harm aquatic habitat in the short term through increased sediment and ash input to streams, but 

would benefit elk and aquatic habitat in the long term through the regeneration of riparian vegetation, 

grasses, and aspen stands. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, managing the Rock Creek ACEC as an NSO area 

for surface-disturbing activities and as a ROW avoidance or exclusion area, deferring mineral leasing, and 

4-250 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—SD/MAs 

withdrawing portions of the area from mineral location would ensure long-term reductions in sediment 

loading in Rock Creek, enhancing habitat for elk and CRCT. The portion of the ACEC outside the 

watershed is partially leased, and oil and gas activities would continue to occur there. These 

developments would not affect the sensitive resources protected within the Rock Creek drainage. 

Leasable, salable, and locatable mineral activity in the area outside the watershed could cause minimal, 

adverse impacts on the wildlife values of the ACEC from human presence, activity, and noise. 

Temporary seasonal road closures in the area outside the Rock Creek watershed would result in long-term 

benefits through an overall reduction in produced sediment loading by closing roads during times of 

heavy snow melt and runoff. This benefit would accrue to watersheds outside Rock Creek, not to the 

Rock Creek area. Livestock grazing on riparian areas and fish habitats could impact CRCT by removing 

and altering riparian vegetation, increasing erosion, and destabilizing stream banks. Often, by the time 

these impacts are detected and management implemented to address them, the damage has already 

occurred to CRCT habitat and populations. Even closely monitored livestock grazing in sensitive habitats 

can produce unintended impacts. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

The Rock Creek ACEC designation would be removed under Alternative 2. In addition to the impacts 

common to all alternatives, impacts from OHV activity would occur because the area would be open to 

OHV use on designated roads and trails. OHV activity on the road in the Rock Creek area would involve 

several crossings of the creek, increasing soil and vegetation disturbance and the amount of sediment 

carried in Rock Creek. This would impact CRCT habitat, including spawning areas, and could result in a 

reduction of the CRCT population in Rock Creek. OHV activity could also disturb elk using the Rock 

Creek area. OHV activity on the road could have a minor impact on the scenic quality of the area. 

Removal of the ACEC designation would also remove the focus from the important resource values 

associated with the watershed. This lack of focus would lower the area in priority for workload analysis 

and funding possibilities in the future, reducing the effectiveness of management in the future. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, closing the Rock Creek drainage portion of the 

ACEC to livestock grazing would eliminate potential impacts on riparian and upland vegetation and 

stream stability. Riparian vegetation could proceed more rapidly to a climax or potential condition, 

promoting stream stability and enhancing habitat for CRCT. Elimination of livestock grazing in this area 

would reduce the Upper North LaBarge allotment by 5,270 acres (approximately 290 AUMs). The 

permittee in the Upper North LaBarge allotment would be required to reduce the number of livestock or 

the season of use in the allotment to achieve the reduction in AUMs. 

Compared to Alternative 1, more stringent management actions would apply to the 610 acres of the 

ACEC outside the Rock Creek drainage. Prohibiting geophysical exploration (except on existing oil and 

gas leases), surface occupancy, and the exploration and development of locatable minerals within this 

area would reduce impacts on soils, vegetation, visual resources, and wildlife. This would be a minor 

overall impact on the relevant characteristics of the Rock Creek ACEC. Big game and other wildlife 

would not be disturbed or their use patterns influenced by OHV use. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 4. 

Pinedale RMP 4-251 
Chapter 4—SD/MAs Final EIS 

Impacts from livestock grazing, mineral leasing, geophysical exploration, and locatable mineral 

development would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. 

Limited fuels treatments would benefit critical resources such as CRCT habitat by preventing streamside 

vegetation burning and reducing erosion into Rock Creek. Total fire suppression would not be beneficial 

to the elk habitat, as conifer encroachment in aspen stands and succession of other vegetation types to 

decadent successional stages would reduce habitat quality for elk. Reduction in aspen stands would 

impact aquatic habitats by decreasing the ability of beaver to maintain their population and thus their 

dams. Beaver dams provide important over-wintering habitat for CRCT. 

Beaver Creek 

The relevant values to be managed in the Beaver Creek area include habitat for a genetically pure 

population of CRCT, and parturition habitat for elk. The Beaver Creek area would be designated an 

ACEC under Alternatives 1, 3 (expanded), and 4 and would have no special designation under Alternative 

2. 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Oil and gas activity would continue in the area, as existing leases would be retained and could be 

developed. The Beaver Creek area includes several producing wells. Oil and gas drilling and production 

activity on existing leases in the Beaver Creek area, including traffic on roads, would cause some amount 

of soil erosion. Some sediment movement into Beaver Creek could occur, reducing habitat quality and 

potentially reducing the reproductive rates of CRCT. Traffic related to oil and gas activity and 

recreational and other activities could also seasonally impact elk using parturition habitat (May 1 to June 

30). 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 1. 

Although oil and gas leasing would continue and existing leases could be developed, impacts would be 

reduced through specific management prescriptions. Gas is currently being produced from three wells in 

the ACEC. New surface disturbance and related impacts of road construction would be minimized, 

limiting sedimentation impacts on CRCT and disturbance of parturition habitats. Prohibiting the use of 

explosive charges would help to reduce disturbance to elk and elk parturition habitat and sedimentation 

impacts on CRCT. 

Withdrawal of the area from land disposal and mineral location and entry would minimize development 

and human presence, limiting habitat alteration and animal displacement on parturition ranges, and 

sedimentation and vegetation alteration impacts on CRCT. 

Prohibiting creek diversions on public lands would maintain water quantity, quality, and stream stability 

for CRCT and other wildlife habitat. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

The Beaver Creek ACEC designation would be removed under Alternative 2. In addition to the impacts 

common to all alternatives, the following impacts would occur. Roads could be constructed in more areas, 

potentially leading to vegetation alteration, reduction in stream stability, and increased sedimentation 

4-252 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—SD/MAs 

impacts on CRCT habitat and possible reduction in CRCT reproductive rates. Road construction could 

also disturb elk using the Beaver Creek area during the parturition period (May 1 to June 30). 

Removal of the ACEC designation would also remove the focus on the important resource values 

associated with the watershed. This lack of focus would lower the area in priority for workload analysis 

and funding possibilities in the future, reducing the effectiveness of management in the future. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

Under Alternative 3, the Beaver Creek ACEC would be expanded to approximately 10,160 acres, more 

than doubling its existing size. This larger area would include all the forks of Beaver Creek between Trail 

Ridge and Narrow Ridge. In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are 

anticipated from Alternative 3. 

Although the area would be closed to new oil and gas leasing, the expanded ACEC is currently 

completely leased. Most of the oil and gas leases in this area are held by production. New, expanded 

protections could be applied to leases only if existing leases were to expire and new leases were issued in 

the area. However, some protections could be applied at the APD stage through conditions of approval. 

Gas is currently being produced from six wells in the expanded ACEC area. Impacts from oil and gas 

development would be similar to those under Alternative 1. 

More stringent restrictions would reduce impacts of road development from those under Alternative 1. 

Stream sedimentation, vegetation alteration, and elk displacement would be reduced. 

A larger area would benefit from mineral withdrawal than under Alternative 1. The reduction in 

disturbance of vegetation, displacement of elk, and stream sedimentation would be greater because of the 

larger area of the withdrawal. 

Prohibiting timber harvesting within the entire ACEC would minimize vegetation alteration, erosion, and 

sedimentation impacts on CRCT and elk. However, this action could limit efforts to control conifer 

encroachment in aspen stands or address other issues related to vegetation succession. Other means would 

have to be considered to address these potential issues and maintain the aspen stands that are essential for 

parturition and for maintenance of beaver habitat. Beaver ponds provide key over-wintering habitat for 

CRCT. 

Limiting vehicle traffic, including geophysical exploration activities, to designated roads and trails would 

eliminate unnecessary roads and help to control habitat fragmentation. 

Prohibiting the use of explosive charges would help to reduce disturbance to elk and to elk parturition 

habitat and sedimentation impacts on CRCT. 

Prohibiting diversions of water from the Beaver Creek drainage would maintain natural instream flows 

and habitat for CRCT. Maintaining flows would also maintain riparian habitats. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, impacts on the Beaver Creek ACEC for most 

activities would be similar to those under Alternative 1, with the following exceptions. 

Impacts from OHV use would be similar to those under Alternative 3. 

Pinedale RMP 4-253 
Chapter 4—SD/MAs Final EIS 

The use of subsurface explosives on a case-by-case basis should have no impacts on CRCT and elk or 

their habitat.

Trapper’s Point 

The relevant values to be managed in the Trapper’s Point area include important cultural sites, a 

regionally important and nationally recognized big game migration bottleneck, and traditional local 

grazing use of a livestock trail and gathering/sorting ranching TCP area. 

The Trapper’s Point area would be designated an ACEC under Alternatives 2 (550 acres), 3 (9,540 acres), 

and 4 (4,160 acres) and would have no special designation under Alternative 1. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

Allowing surface disturbance or mineral development in this area could lead to degradation or elimination 

of the big game migration through the bottleneck area. Disruption of the mule deer and pronghorn 

migrations through this area could have far-reaching impacts, including elimination of pronghorn from 

Grand Teton National Park and unknown impacts on the pronghorn and mule deer populations in 

Sublette, Teton, and Sweetwater Counties. Other impacts from development in the Trapper’s Point area 

would include loss of forage for wildlife and livestock, disruption of livestock use on the Upper Green 

River stock driveway, vegetation loss, and soil erosion. 

Allowing additional fencing in the bottleneck area would add obstacles to migrating animals and could 

reach a density or severity sufficient to disrupt migrations. 

Allowing OHV use on existing roads and trails and in all seasons would cause stress on migrating mule 

deer and pronghorn and could lead to vegetation loss and further fragmentation of habitat. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

Approximately 550 acres would be designated as the Trapper’s Point ACEC. This represents the area 

proposed by the Trapper’s Point Working Group led by Wyoming State Representative Monte Olsen in 

2003. The area would be buffered on two sides by areas with NSO stipulations (Map 2-2). 

Closing the ACEC to oil and gas leasing and most other surface-disturbing activities would preserve the 

viability of the area as a big game migration corridor. There are no current oil and gas leases in this area. 

This alternative would protect the core bottleneck area where mule deer and pronghorn cross U.S. 

Highway 191, but would not protect adjacent staging areas leading up to the crossing. It is not known 

whether the area protected by this alternative would be sufficient to maintain the viability of the migration 

bottleneck in the long term. 

Closing the ACEC to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities would also preserve intact 

the many NRHP-eligible historic properties and other cultural sites in the area. The TCP area important to 

local ranching for trailing, gathering, and sorting of cattle on the Green River Drift would be maintained 

without obstructions from development. 

Prohibiting additional fences within the ACEC would maintain the current viability of the crossing area. 

The animals are able to successfully negotiate the current system of fences. Prohibiting the construction 

of additional fences would prevent the threshold of disruption of the migration from being reached. 

Cultural sites would also be protected. 

4-254 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—SD/MAs 

The ACEC lands would not be withdrawn from locatable mineral development or operation of the public 

land laws. While the potential for locatable mineral development in this area is remote, locatable mineral 

activities could severely impact the viability of big game migration, ranching operations, and integrity of 

NRHP-eligible historic properties. Locatable mineral claims could result in digging of pits or other 

excavations. These excavations would further narrow the migration bottleneck, would interfere with 

movement of livestock, and could damage or destroy cultural resources. 

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails and enacting a seasonal closure would reduce 

fragmentation of habitat in the bottleneck area, reduce stress on migrating animals, and prevent 

destruction of cultural sites from off-road driving. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

Approximately 9,540 acres would be designated as the Trapper’s Point ACEC. The protections of the big 

game migration bottleneck, livestock trailing and gathering operations, and NRHP-eligible historic sites 

would extend over a much larger area. 

This alternative would also protect staging and feeding areas for big game as they approach the 

bottleneck. Animals would have more opportunity to prepare for passage through the bottleneck and 

highway crossing, and would experience less stress in the bottleneck area. This could contribute to 

increased winter survival, particularly for pronghorn, and maintenance of higher populations of pronghorn 

and mule deer. 

A withdrawal from public land laws, including disposal and mineral location, would eliminate the 

potential for impacts from mining of locatable minerals. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

Approximately 4,160 acres would be designated as the Trapper’s Point ACEC. The management actions 

under this alternative would be identical to those identified under Alternative 3. The difference between 

Alternatives 3 and 4 is the size of the ACEC. 

The Cora Butte area stretching to the northwest of the bottleneck, not included in the ACEC under 

Alternative 4, is crucial winter range for mule deer and would be closed to human presence during the 

winter months under this alternative. The big game crucial staging and feeding areas would be protected 

from surface-disturbing activities, and subsequent habitat fragmentation would not occur, thus relieving 

some stress as big game navigate through the corridor. 

The Trapper’s Point ACEC under this alternative, while smaller than the ACEC under Alternative 3, is 

probably sufficient to maintain the viability of big game migration through the Trapper’s Point area. 

New Fork Potholes 

The relevant values to be managed in the New Fork Potholes area include important scenic values, unique 

riparian habitat, and unique pothole geology. The New Fork Potholes area would be designated an ACEC 

under Alternatives 3 and 4 and would have no special designation under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

Oil and gas development (e.g., pads, roads, pipelines) and geophysical operations on new and existing 

leases would potentially result in alteration of the water table and water quality, loss of primitive 

recreation experiences and high scenic values, and loss or fragmentation of wildlife habitat, including 

Pinedale RMP 4-255 
Chapter 4—SD/MAs Final EIS 

fragmentation of big game habitats and disruption of migratory bird and waterfowl habitats. Allowing 

surface disturbance could have unforeseen effects on the water table and water quality of the area. It is 

unknown whether drilling gas wells, for instance, could impact the water table in the area or the physical 

structure that maintains water at a high level in the potholes area. 

Development activities, increased human presence, and presence of infrastructure would diminish the 

scenic quality and alter the back-country recreation values of the area. This type of development could 

also displace nesting waterfowl, reduce vegetation cover, or cause other vegetation or habitat impacts, 

including fragmentation, which would reduce the quality of the wildlife and waterfowl habitat in the area. 

Impacts on waterfowl nesting habitat could result in reduced reproductive rates and populations, 

particularly for trumpeter swans, which nest in few areas of the planning area. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

The impacts on the New Fork Potholes area under Alternative 2 would be the same as those under 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

Under Alternative 3, the New Fork Potholes would be designated as an ACEC. Closing the ACEC to oil 

and gas leasing, locatable mineral entry, and other surface-disturbing activities would maintain scenic 

values, vegetation health, and the hydrologic regime of the potholes. Restricting development in this 

sensitive area would ensure the long-term viability of the pristine pothole habitat, which would benefit big 

game and migratory bird and waterfowl populations. Brood-rearing habitat for the trumpeter swan, a 

BLM sensitive species, and habitat, including brood-rearing habitats, for migratory waterfowl and 

shorebird species would be maintained. These potholes provide shelter from predators and valuable food 

sources. In addition, adverse impacts on the water table and water quality would be prevented. 

Existing mineral leases would remain valid along with the right to develop those leases. About 64% of the 

ACEC is currently leased for oil and gas development. COA would be the only way to address resource 

protection in these instances. Some sedimentation of water and loss of wildlife habitat could occur with 

development of existing leases. An APD for a gas well in the area is currently being considered. 

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails and implementing seasonal closures during the crucial 

winter range time frame (November 15 to April 30) would decrease potential wildlife harassment or stress 

to wildlife from human presence. Impacts on vegetation and the potential for increased erosion from offroad driving would be prevented. 

Recreation users would benefit from the creation of the ACEC, as it would protect the remote 

backcountry experience that currently exists. Limiting any kind of development would ensure the quality 

of the recreation experience. 

ACEC designation would serve to focus priorities for funding and workloads on the management of the 

unique resources in the New Fork Potholes area, benefiting the resources by increasing the potential of 

meeting management objectives. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

The impacts on the New Fork Potholes area under Alternative 4 would be the same as those under 

Alternative 3. 

4-256 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—SD/MAs 

Upper Green River 

The relevant values to be managed in the Upper Green River area include an essential point in mule deer 

migrations and high scenic and recreational values, including 11 developed river access and camping 

sites. The Upper Green River area would be designated an ACEC under Alternative 3 (12,270 acres). The 

area would be designated an SRMA under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4. 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Human presence at developed camping and boat launch sites has the potential to disturb or displace 

migrating mule deer and other big game. Human presence would likely be low at the times of the year 

when animals make these migrations, making the probability of impacts low. 

Livestock grazing in the Upper Green River area would have the potential to alter vegetation communities 

and wildlife habitats. In the past, livestock grazing has not caused vegetation changes to the extent of 

impacting the big game migration. Livestock are not present in the public land allotments on the Upper 

Green River at the time when big game are migrating. This impact is unlikely to occur. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 1. 

The Upper Green River area would be designated an SRMA (5,160 acres) under Alternative 1. Allowing 

mineral development with CSU stipulations would limit the impact of development on visual and 

recreational values; however, the recreation values would be substantially diminished if development of 

mineral leases were to occur. The natural and relatively unaltered character of the area would be 

irretrievably altered by fluid mineral development activities and facilities. Site-specific postlease actions 

(e.g., APDs and ROW authorizations) in areas with existing valid rights would be allowed, subject to 

surface use restrictions on a case-by-case basis, as supported through project-specific NEPA analysis. 

Surface disturbance could occur on existing and new leases, which could result in wildlife disturbance, 

degradation of visual quality, soil erosion, loss of livestock and wildlife forage, and loss of wildlife cover. 

Wildlife could be displaced from the area of development, reducing the viability of the migration route 

and the river crossing bottleneck. The CSU stipulation applied to mineral leases would protect recreation 

values on lands located within approximately 1,200 feet of either side of the river. 

Restricting OHV use to existing roads and trails would limit damage to important natural resource values. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

The impacts on the Upper Green River area under Alternative 2 would be the same as those under 

Alternative 1, including the impacts common to all alternatives. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 3. 

Under Alternative 3, the Upper Green River ACEC (12,270 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. The 

ACEC would be larger than the SRMA designated under Alternative 1. 

Pinedale RMP 4-257 
Chapter 4—SD/MAs Final EIS 

This alternative would provide the greatest level of protection to the wildlife resources in the Upper Green 

River area. Closing the ACEC to oil and gas leasing and withdrawing it from locatable mineral 

development would prevent vegetation and wildlife habitat alterations and would reduce displacement of 

migrating wildlife because of human presence and industrial activity, although human presence from 

recreation would not be diminished. Surface disturbance could still occur on existing leases. Expanding 

the acreage of the ACEC would provide protection to wildlife and recreation values over a larger area. 

Restricting OHV use to designated roads and trails and allowing no net gain in miles of roads and trails 

throughout the ACEC would reduce user conflicts and soil erosion and could improve the visual qualities 

of the area as roads not designated for use are reclaimed. OHV use opportunities in the ACEC would be 

limited, reducing the quality of experience for some users, but enhancing the experience for others. 

Designating the area as an ACEC rather than an SRMA would change the focus of management in the 

Upper Green River area. Management of recreation resources and facilities would no longer be the 

highest priority in the area. If funds for maintenance of facilities were not available, some facilities could 

be closed, and a reduction in user benefits could occur. The possibility of this impact is remote. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated from 

Alternative 4. 

Under Alternative 4, the Upper Green River SRMA would be enlarged to 7,180 acres. Making the area 

available for oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation would provide similar protections to those under 

Alternative 3. There would be some potential for locatable mineral claims, most likely claims for gold. 

Gold is not known to be present in economic quantities; however, a discovery could be made. The 

potential for locatable mineral claims in this area is small. Activities related to locatable mineral claims, 

including surface disturbance, dredging, human activity, and noise could displace migrating wildlife, alter 

vegetation and habitats, and detract from the recreation experience. Impacts from economically viable 

locatable discoveries could be substantial; however, the potential for locatable minerals is low, and 

impacts would not be likely. Recreational mining for locatable minerals could create minor impacts 

related to surface disturbance, human presence, and noise. 

Management to maintain the integrity of big game migration routes could alter the placement, orientation, 

or design of facilities, roads, fences, and other associated improvements, increasing the cost of design and 

construction or potentially resulting in project disapproval. 

White-Tailed Prairie Dog 

The relevant value to be managed in the White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC is habitat for the white-tailed 

prairie dog. The White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC would be designated under Alternative 3. There would 

be no special designation for white-tailed prairie dog habitat under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, although there 

would be management prescriptions to conserve prairie dog habitats in those alternatives. 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Prairie dogs may compete with cattle for forage under drought conditions. Drought can also cause whitetailed prairie dogs to enter hibernation early (Bakko and Nahorniak 1986), and prairie dogs without 

adequate fat stores may not survive the winter. While most spread of noxious weeds is owing to vehicles, 

livestock can also contribute to the spread of noxious and other weeds, potentially reducing the forage 

base available for prairie dogs. The likelihood of these impacts because of livestock grazing is small. 

4-258 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—SD/MAs 

White-tailed prairie dogs can be displaced from habitats if sagebrush stands become too dense or are 

encroached by other species. Managing the public lands in the planning area to meet the Standards for 

Rangeland Health (USDI, BLM 1997) should minimize this impact. Livestock grazing management can 

also be used to help create early vegetation seral stages and habitat for white-tailed prairie dogs. 

Oil and gas exploration and development would impact prairie dogs through direct habitat disturbances 

resulting from construction of well pads, roads, pipelines, compressor stations, and other infrastructure. 

Impacts would include vegetation community alteration resulting in habitat destruction and degradation, 

direct prairie dog mortality, and removal of potential black-footed ferret reintroduction areas. Prairie dogs 

would also be indirectly impacted through habitat fragmentation and increased human activity. Structures 

and facilities that provide artificial nesting sites for raptors, including structures not primarily built for this 

purpose, would increase predation on white-tailed prairie dogs. This would contribute to the decline of the 

white-tailed prairie dog population. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, off-road OHV use in the 237,000-acre Desert 

General Use OHV Open area could damage vegetation, introduce noxious weeds, and injure or kill prairie 

dogs. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

Potential impacts on white-tailed prairie dogs would be greatest under this alternative. In addition to the 

impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts are anticipated under Alternative 2. 

Impacts from lands and realty actions and mineral development, particularly gas field development, 

would be greatest under this alternative, because more wells, roads, and other facilities would be 

developed and fewer surface disturbance restrictions would apply. Allowing surface disturbance in all 

prairie dog towns, including those larger than 12.5 acres, would increase vegetation alteration, burrow 

destruction, and direct mortality and would reduce the availability of sites for black-footed ferret 

reintroduction. 

Competition with livestock for forage and potential impacts on prairie dog habitats from livestock use 

would be greatest under this alternative. Increasing livestock use to 157,308 AUMs would increase forage 

utilization by livestock, the potential for introduction of weeds, and alteration of vegetation communities. 

Eliminating the Desert General OHV Open area would reduce the amount of off-road OHV use in 

sensitive prairie dog habitats and could also reduce the amount of recreational shooting of prairie dogs. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

The White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC would be designated under this alternative. In addition to the impacts 

common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated under Alternative 3. 

Acquisition of prairie dog habitats for protection would benefit the species by increasing the extent of 

protected viable habitat. Reduced overall levels of oil and gas development under this alternative would 

result in fewer ancillary roads, pipelines, and other facilities associated with gas field development, 

lessening impacts on prairie dog habitat from vegetation removal and alteration, burrow destruction, and 

direct mortality. 

Pinedale RMP 4-259 
Chapter 4—SD/MAs Final EIS 

Reducing livestock grazing use to approximately 84,000 AUMs would reduce competition for forage 

between livestock and prairie dogs. Introduction of weeds and alteration of vegetation communities from 

livestock grazing would also be reduced. 

Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities within prairie dog towns of any size and requiring raptorinhibiting devices on all aboveground facilities within one-quarter mile of towns would reduce prairie dog 

habitat loss and predation. The structure of prairie dog towns would be protected, allowing for continued 

movement of colonies and increased foraging opportunities. Potential black-footed ferret introduction 

sites would also be protected. 

Impacts from OHV use on prairie dogs would be less under this alternative. OHV use in the ACEC would 

be limited to designated roads and trails, eliminating unnecessary roads and fragmentation of sensitive 

prairie dog habitats. This could also reduce the amount of recreational shooting in off-road areas in prairie 

dog habitats. 

Prohibiting prairie dog poisoning on BLM-administered lands would reduce mortality rates and could 

enable population growth for white-tailed prairie dogs. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated under 

Alternative 4. 

Impacts from livestock grazing management would be similar to those under Alternative 1. 

Impacts from OHV management and prohibition of prairie dog poisoning would be similar to those under 

Alternative 3. 

Prairie dog habitats would not be protected through acquisition of lands by BLM. The impact of this 

action should be small, because most current prairie dog habitats occur on BLM-administered public 

lands. 

While the number of oil and gas wells predicted is roughly similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, increased 

protective restrictions would reduce impacts on prairie dogs from those alternatives. Avoiding surfacedisturbing activities and requiring raptor-inhibiting devices on all aboveground facilities within onequarter mile of towns that are more than 12.5 acres would reduce prairie dog habitat loss and predation. 

The structure of prairie dog towns would be protected, allowing for continued movement of colonies and 

increased foraging opportunities. Potential black-footed ferret introduction sites would also be protected. 

Impacts could be somewhat higher than under Alternative 3, but the protections under this alternative 

should be sufficient to protect prairie dog habitats and populations. 

Miller Mountain 

The Miller Mountain MA would be designated under Alternatives 3 and 4 for the protection of open 

space, natural landscapes, and big game winter ranges. There would be no special designation for the 

Miller Mountain area under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

Allowing commercial timber production in the area would potentially increase soil erosion, degrade 

wildlife habitat and visual values, and decrease the opportunity for open space. 

4-260 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—SD/MAs 

Allowing for the exchange or disposal of lands in the Miller Mountain area could lead to fragmentation of 

public land and development of private lands. The ability to exchange lands in this area could also help to 

block up scattered private land holdings in the area, making the public lands more contiguous and more 

easily managed. Impacts would include increased soil erosion, increased human activity and habitat 

fragmentation, reduction of scenic quality, and decreased opportunity for open space. 

Mineral location or oil and gas development in the area, including well pads, roads, pipelines, and 

locatable mineral exploration or development would cause impacts on the visual qualities of the area, 

habitat integrity, and soil stability. 

Increases in road density would fragment wildlife habitats, including elk parturition areas and crucial elk 

winter range. Fragmentation of habitats reduces the usable portion of habitat blocks, and can reach the 

point where large blocks of habitat are no longer usable by wildlife because of human activity, 

discontinuity of vegetation, and changes in vegetation. 

Surface disturbance on slopes greater than 15% (11,410 acres) could result in increased erosion of 

unstable soils and reduce the scenic quality of the area. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

Impacts on wildlife habitat, scenic values, and open space would be greatest under Alternative 2. Oil and 

gas or other development under reduced protections for crucial big game winter ranges could lead to 

fragmentation, vegetation alteration and removal, and increased human presence. Elk could be displaced 

from the winter range and parturition habitats, potentially reducing survival and reproductive rates. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

Approximately 66,440 acres would be designated as the Miller Mountain MA. 

Prohibiting commercial timber harvest in the area would help preserve natural landscape values and 

reduce potential erosion. This would also prevent habitat fragmentation, preserve cover for wintering big 

game, preserve lynx habitat, and provide nesting habitat for neotropical migrants. However, conifer 

encroachment in aspen stands or decadent stands of trees could degrade habitat values for elk, mule deer, 

and cavity-nesting birds. 

Closing the area to oil and gas leasing, land disposal, and mineral location would protect visual and 

recreation values, and minimize erosion and the fragmentation of crucial wildlife habitat. Development of 

existing leases (53% of the MA) would have similar impacts on those under Alternative 1. 

Prohibiting surface disturbance on slopes greater than 15% and limiting OHV use to designated roads and 

trails would minimize soil erosion, vegetation removal and alteration, and disturbance to wildlife. 

Prohibiting road construction in talus rockslide areas would prevent increased erosion and damage to 

sensitive habitats and scenic areas. Additional fragmentation of crucial wildlife habitats would be 

minimized. Opportunities for semiprimitive motorized activities would be reduced. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

Approximately 66,440 acres would be designated as the Miller Mountain MA. 

Impacts from land tenure actions would be similar to those under Alternative 1. 

Pinedale RMP 4-261 
Chapter 4—SD/MAs Final EIS 

Timber production could impact the open space and natural landscape values and lead to greater erosion. 

In the long term, timber management actions could enhance wildlife habitat values through regeneration 

of aspen and enhancing the variety of vegetation successional stages present on the landscape. 

Oil and gas or other mineral extraction activities could impact the open space, natural landscape values, 

and crucial wildlife habitat through the construction of roads and other facilities, human presence and 

activity, and noise associated with development. Crucial winter range and parturition areas could be 

fragmented, reducing the effectiveness of those habitats. Displacement of elk from crucial winter range or 

parturition habitats could result in reduced survival or reproductive rates. 

Impacts from OHV management would be similar to those under Alternative 3.

Ross Butte 

The relevant values to be managed in the Ross Butte area include significant cultural resources, 

archeological landscapes and sacred sites, a unique community of Wyoming sensitive plant species, highquality paleontological resources, open space and dispersed recreation opportunities, and unique 

geology/unstable soils. The Ross Butte area would be designated an ACEC under Alternative 3 (35,670 

acres). The area would be designated an MA under Alternative 4. There would be no special designation 

for the Ross Butte area under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Existing oil and gas leases are present on approximately 15,695 acres of the Ross Butte area. Drilling of 

oil and gas wells and development of ancillary facilities (e.g., pipelines, roads, and compression stations) 

would disturb fragile and unstable soils. Previously undiscovered archeological and paleontological 

resources could be damaged if intercepted during the construction process. Development in these areas 

would impact the scenic quality of the buttes and badlands by interrupting the color, form, and lines of the 

natural landscape. Reclamation of soils and vegetation in the Ross Butte area would be particularly 

difficult. Some plant communities and slopes could not be reclaimed to their predisturbance state. 

Location and development of hard rock mineral claims could cause disturbance or mortality of sensitive 

plants or accelerated soil erosion from disturbance of soils through digging of test pits, prospects, or 

mineral production sites. The potential for locatable minerals in this area is remote, making this impact 

unlikely. 

Development of salable minerals could cause similar impacts on locatable minerals. The potential for 

salable minerals (sand and gravel) is low to moderate. Some resources exist, but quantities and access 

may not be conducive to commercial production. If salable minerals were developed, the area of 

disturbance would be greater than for locatable minerals. 

OHV activity on the badlands and slopes would damage fragile and erosive soils and the various sensitive 

plant species present. OHV tracks would create artificial channels for surface water flow, accelerating 

erosion rates. OHV use could also crush sensitive plants or pull them from the soil; it could also compact 

the soil, changing water infiltration and availability and other site characteristics and causing the loss of 

the Special Status Plant Species present. 

Any activity that accelerates soil erosion would also increase the chance of damage to archeological and 

paleontological resources. 

4-262 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—SD/MAs 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated under 

Alternative 1. 

Installation of communication towers would involve construction of roads capable of supporting heavy 

equipment and cement trucks over fragile soils and steep slopes. Communication towers are generally 

constructed on the highest points available in the landscape. Roads to reach the highest points of the Ross 

Butte area would need extensive engineering and improvement to achieve grades navigable by heavy 

equipment and trucks. These roads could extend for long distances to achieve the required grades. The 

road bed and cuts would be visible from long distances and would degrade the scenic quality of the area. 

Communication sites would also require regular maintenance, necessitating travel through crucial winter 

ranges during winter closures. Mule deer on crucial winter ranges could be disturbed or displaced by this 

activity. Maintenance activities would be required only monthly or once every 2 months, making this 

impact minor. 

Oil and gas leasing would continue in the Ross Butte area. The impacts of mineral development as 

described above could occur over a larger area as new leases are issued and developed. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated under 

Alternative 2. Impacts on the Ross Butte area would be greatest under this alternative. Increased 

anticipated oil and gas development would intensify the impacts described under Alternative 1. More 

wells developed would result in more soil and vegetation disturbance under this alternative. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated under 

Alternative 3. 

Designation of the Ross Butte ACEC and implementation of the accompanying management actions 

would minimize surface disturbance, making impacts on the relevant and important characteristics least 

under Alternative 3. Making the ACEC unavailable for oil and gas leasing would maintain the fragile 

soils and vegetation communities in portions of the ACEC that are currently unleased. Prohibiting surface 

occupancy on erosive soils, sensitive plant species habitat, and slopes greater than 10% would also 

prevent accelerated erosion and damage or destruction of sensitive plants. There would be no impacts 

from road construction, heavy equipment traffic, tower construction, or periodic maintenance related to 

new cellular phone towers or other communication site developments. 

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails would minimize the amount of soil and vegetation 

damage and accelerated erosion. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated under 

Alternative 4. 

Designation of the Ross Butte MA and implementation of management actions would reduce surface 

disturbance compared to that under Alternative 1. Impacts from OHV use would be similar to those under 

Pinedale RMP 4-263 
Chapter 4—SD/MAs Final EIS 

Alternative 3. Making new oil and gas leases in the area available with NSO stipulations would make the 

impacts of oil and gas development similar to those under Alternative 3. 

Impacts from construction of new communication sites would be somewhat greater than under 

Alternative 3. Allowing construction of new facilities at the present site would add to impacts on rock 

alignments and the setting of the TCP in the area. 

Conditioning development of existing leases or new proposed projects to avoid or protect erosive soils 

and sensitive plant communities should achieve protection of those resources. This more flexible 

stipulation would allow project proponents to develop project plans that protect the relevant and important 

characteristics of the area. However, without total protection, Special Status Plant Species could be 

adversely affected, causing the loss of some of the populations, which could affect the species population 

throughout its range. 

CCC Ponds 

The relevant values to be managed in the CCC Ponds area include a bottleneck on a well-defined mule 

deer migration route and recreational values, including a developed, nonmotorized trail system; fishing 

ponds; and interpretive facilities. The CCC Ponds area would be designated an ACEC under Alternative 3 

(5,530 acres). The area would be designated an SRMA under Alternative 4 (1,040 acres). There would be 

no special designation for the CCC Ponds area under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Existing oil and gas leases could sustain surface-disturbing activities that would diminish scenic, 

recreation, and wildlife habitat quality. Well pad, road and pipeline construction, drilling, and production 

would include surface disturbance, human presence and activity, vegetation removal, and noise. 

Development or other activities in this area would have unknown impacts on the mule deer migration. 

Impeding or severing this migration route would impact the mule deer herd across the entire Wind River 

Front area. In particular, adding stress to migrating big game during the fall migration could impact 

animal fat stores, fitness for winter survival, and reproductive rates. 

Moderate or heavy levels of human presence within the CCC Ponds area during the spring and fall 

migration periods could disrupt or displace mule deer during their migration. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts from development of oil and gas leases would occur only on existing leases (35% of the area), 

because no new leases would be available. Stipulations applied to all activities within one-quarter mile of 

the CCC Ponds would protect recreational values in the immediate vicinity of the developed recreation 

sites, but would not be sufficient to protect the mule deer migration bottleneck. 

Exploration and development of locatable minerals could cause vegetation removal, soil disturbance, 

noise, reduction in recreational and scenic quality, and displacement of migrating big game. The potential 

for locatable minerals is low, making the likelihood of this impact remote. 

4-264 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—SD/MAs 

Prohibiting motorized vehicle use on the Pinedale Pathway would reduce disturbance of migrating and 

wintering wildlife, particularly mule deer, in this migration bottleneck area. Walking, skiing, and biking 

use on the Pinedale Pathway would still have some potential to disrupt and displace mule deer. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 2. 

Impacts from locatable minerals would be similar to those under Alternative 1. 

Additional oil and gas leasing in the CCC Ponds area could result in vegetation changes, disruption of big 

game, and reductions in scenic quality over a larger area. Allowing motorized vehicle use on the Pinedale 

Pathway would cause additional stress to migrating mule deer and could further impact the integrity of the 

migration route. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

The CCC Ponds ACEC would be designated (5,530 acres). In addition to the impacts common to all 

alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would provide 

the greatest level of protection of the relevant and important characteristics of the CCC Ponds area. 

Impacts from oil and gas development and use of the Pinedale Pathway would be similar to those under 

Alternative 1. 

There would be no impact on vegetation, recreation sites, or big game from locatable mineral activities. 

Limiting OHV and over-the-snow motorized equipment use to designated roads would reduce disturbance 

and displacement of wildlife, including migrating mule deer. The opportunity to use over-the-snow 

motorized equipment would be minimally reduced. The CCC Ponds ACEC is a small area, and other 

portions of the PFO and the Bridger-Teton National Forest are more popular snowmobiling areas. 

Designing projects to accommodate big game migration in the CCC Ponds area could result in moving or 

realigning projects, conducting activities in seasons that do not conflict with migration activity, 

redesigning projects to be smaller or less visible, or disapproving proposed projects. These actions would 

increase the cost of projects, but would preserve the use of the migration bottleneck by big game. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

The CCC Ponds SRMA would be designated (1,040 acres). In addition to the impacts common to all 

alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from Alternative 4. 

Impacts from oil and gas development, OHV use, and project design to accommodate mule deer 

migration would be similar to those identified under Alternative 3, over the smaller-acreage SRMA area 

that would be designated under Alternative 4. 

There would be no impact on vegetation, recreation sites, or big game from locatable mineral activities. 

The area protected from locatable mineral development would be smaller than under Alternative 3. 

Pinedale RMP 4-265 
Chapter 4—SD/MAs Final EIS 

Wind River Front 

The relevant values to be managed in the Wind River Front area include cultural and historic artifacts and 

sites; big game winter and transitional habitats and migration routes and bottlenecks; and greater sagegrouse lekking, nesting, and brood-rearing habitats. The area would be designated an MA under 

Alternatives 1 (243,040 acres), 3 (358,400 acres), and 4 (201,240 acres). There would be no special 

designation for the Wind River Front area under Alternative 2. 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Livestock grazing would occur in most of the Wind River Front area. Livestock grazing has the potential 

to alter vegetation communities, trample riparian areas, and compete with wildlife for forage. Livestock 

could also damage recreation sites by rubbing on or breaking structures and trampling or otherwise 

damaging campsites and other areas. Conversely, livestock grazing can also be used to manage vegetation 

to achieve desired seral stages or habitat qualities, such as vegetation height or density. 

Development of existing oil and gas leases, including well pad, pipeline, and road construction, would 

disturb vegetation, impact scenic quality, and disturb or displace wildlife from preferred habitats. Noise, 

fragmentation, and human presence and activity would impact greater sage-grouse lek attendance, 

breeding, and nest success and big game habitat usage. 

Locatable mineral exploration and development would entail surface disturbance, vegetation removal or 

alteration, human presence and activity, noise, and presence of vehicles or structures. These activities 

could impact greater sage-grouse lek attendance, breeding and nest success, and big game habitat usage. 

The potential for locatable mineral development is remote, making this impact unlikely. 

Salable mineral development would entail surface disturbance, vegetation removal or alteration, human 

presence and activity, noise, and presence of vehicles or structures. These activities could impact greater 

sage-grouse lek attendance, breeding and nest success, and big game habitat usage. 

Recreation users and other human activities could cause impacts, including trampling, disruption, or 

displacement of livestock and wildlife; accidental wildland fire ignition; and accumulation of trash. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 1. 

A large area of the Wind River Front would be unavailable for future oil and gas leasing. Impacts related 

to oil and gas development would be limited to the area currently leased. Closing the area to oil and gas 

leasing and geophysical operations would protect the integrity of nationally important seismic information 

gathered at the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Detachment. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 2. 

Oil and gas drilling within 6 miles of the USAF Detachment would compromise global nuclear detonation 

monitoring activities conducted at the facility, and data quality could suffer. Impacts on the seismic 

monitoring activities of the Detachment could have national and international implications. 

4-266 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—SD/MAs 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 3. 

The impacts of oil and gas development would be similar to those under Alternative 1. 

Prohibiting geophysical exploration in the MA would prevent vegetation damage, disruption of wildlife, 

and disturbance to the recreating public. 

The impacts of surface-disturbing activities would be mitigated. This could involve redesigning or 

moving proposed projects, applying seasonal restrictions to project construction, or disallowing projects. 

These requirements would minimize vegetation alteration, human activity in wildlife habitats during 

sensitive periods, disruption of recreational activities, and degradation of scenic values. 

Prohibiting commercial timber harvesting could threaten forest health and degrade mule deer parturition 

habitat. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

In addition to the impacts common to all alternatives, the following impacts would be anticipated from 

Alternative 4. 

The impacts of oil and gas development would be similar to those under Alternative 1. 

Allowing forest management activities consistent with the HFRA would allow for projects designed to 

promote forest health and improve wildlife habitats. 

4.18.4 Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Both of the WSAs would be managed under the IMP. There are almost no discretionary actions that the 

RMP can take that would affect either area. There are no proposed actions contrary to managing the areas 

to protect their wilderness character. Therefore, the impact of the IMP is that the wilderness character of 

the areas would be preserved. The areas’ opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation, 

as well as any special features that further qualify them for consideration as wilderness, would be 

preserved. At the same time, activities that would adversely affect the wilderness character of the areas 

would be prohibited. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

Because the Lake Mountain WSA is not closed to all motor vehicle use, it would continue to see motor 

vehicle use on existing roads. This activity has the potential to adversely affect the wilderness 

characteristics of the area. Motor vehicle use could cause additional surface disturbance if roads and 

camping areas were extended, and by the fact that motorized activity is not compatible with the concept 

of wilderness. Motor vehicle use would impact perceptions of solitude and would be contrary to the 

concept of primitive, unconfined recreation. 

Classification of the WSAs as VRM Class I would provide an additional degree of protection above that 

provided by the IMP. Like the Wilderness IMP, the Class I VRM objective requires that the visual 

Pinedale RMP 4-267 
Chapter 4—SD/MAs Final EIS 

character of the area be preserved. The impact of Class I would be to exclude projects from the area that 

would impact the visual quality. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

Potential impacts because of OHV use would be identical to those under Alternative 1. 

Under this alternative, both WSAs would be designated as VRM Class II. In spite of this, there is no 

likelihood of impacts on the WSAs because of the umbrella protection provided by the Wilderness IMP, 

the primary authority under which the WSAs are managed (see Impacts Common to all Alternatives). 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

This alternative would maximize protection for the wilderness values of both the WSAs because both 

would be closed to all motor vehicle use and both would be managed under a Class I VRM objective. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

Impacts under this alternative would be the same as under Alternative 3. 

4.18.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Methods of Analysis 

BLM assessed the suitability of eligible waterways through the RMP process. Factors considered (see 

Section 4(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1973 [WSRA]) include— 

• The characteristics that do or do not make the area a worthy addition to the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). 

• The status of landownership and land and resource uses in the area, including private land and 

incompatible uses. 

• Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the public lands involved and related waters that would 

be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the NWSRS, and the values that 

may be foreclosed or diminished if the public lands are not protected as part of the NWSRS. 

• Public, state, local, tribal, or federal interests in designation or nondesignation of any part or all of 

a waterway involved, including the extent to which the administration of any or all of the 

waterway, as well as the costs thereof, may be shared by state, local, or other agencies and 

individuals. 

• The estimated costs of acquiring necessary lands, interests in lands, and administering the area if 

it was added to the NWSRS. Section 6 of the WSRA outlines policies and limitations for 

acquiring lands or interests in lands by donation, exchange, consent of owners, easement, transfer, 

assignment of rights, or condemnation within and outside established river boundaries. 

• The ability of BLM to manage and/or protect the public lands involved as part of the NWSRS or 

by another mechanism (existing or potential), to protect identified values other than WSR 

designation. 

4-268 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—SD/MAs 

• Historical or existing rights that could be adversely affected. In the suitability review, adequate 

consideration was given to rights held by other landowners and applicants, lessees, claimants, or 

authorized users of the public lands involved. 

• Other issues and concerns, if any. 

The 10 waterways found eligible were analyzed using the above factors by a BLM planning team in 

preparation for this RMP in March 2002. The full report—Final Report, Pinedale Field Office Review of 

Potential Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Pinedale Resource Management Plan Planning Area, prepared 

for BLM by Jonas Consulting, Flagstaff, Arizona, December 2, 2002—is available for review in the PFO. 

Impacts Under Alternative 1, Continuation of Existing Management 

Under indefinite interim management, the qualities that qualified the 10 waterways as eligible for 

inclusion in the NWSRS would be afforded protection. The undeveloped nature of the waterways would 

be protected. 

Impacts Under Alternative 2 

Under this alternative, none of the eligible waterways would be recommended for designation under the 

WSRA. All would be subject to the changes brought about over time from resource use and development 

that, in the long term, would impact the wild, scenic, recreational, fisheries, historical, cultural, or other 

ecological values that qualified them as eligible for consideration. 

Impacts Under Alternative 3 

This alternative would provide long-term protection for the wild, scenic, recreational, cultural, fishery, 

historical, wildlife, or other ecological values found to be present in the 10 eligible waterway segments. 

The values identified above would increase in value over time as the majority of the planning area 

changes through development. It would displace development-oriented uses such as water impoundment 

or diversion, prevent actions such as disposal of public land, and impact mineral development or other 

surface-disturbing activities on designated public land parcels. Recreational uses would generally be 

enhanced, and funding for management would be more readily available because the waterways would be 

part of a national system. 

The segments proposed for inclusion in the WSR system in this alternative are all located entirely on 

BLM-administered public lands. No costs would be incurred in land acquisition to manage the segments. 

The Green River segment contains a number of existing water rights and several ditches for diverting the 

water. Inclusion of the Green River segment in the WSR system could help to ensure future availability of 

the water. Although the proposed management actions provide for construction of some new structures, 

construction of new irrigation or water access ditches could be made more difficult by the ROW 

avoidance area and requirement that new structures not detract from the outstandingly remarkable 

characteristics of the area. 

Two of the four segments (Scab Creek, Silver Creek) are located within the Scab Creek Wilderness Study 

Area. Potential uses of these lands are restricted by the IMP for lands under wilderness review. The 

limitations on these segments would be compatible with previously existing limitations under that policy. 

Water rights from these streams are held by private landowners downstream of the proposed segments. 

Protection of the potential WSR segments would assist in making water available to these users in the 

Pinedale RMP 4-269 
Chapter 4—SD/MAs Final EIS 

future. Ditches for accessing water would be required to conform to the IMP and the requirement that new 

structures not affect the natural qualities of the area. 

The East Fork River segment is located upstream of private lands and adjacent to the USFS boundary. 

Protection of this segment would assist in making water available to downstream water right holders in 

the future. Prohibition of ROWs and diversions under this alternative would be incompatible with existing 

or future adjudicated water rights. 

Impacts Under Alternative 4, Proposed RMP 

Under this alternative, portions of the Green River, East Fork River, and combined Scab Creek units 

would be recommended for designation under the WSRA. The remaining waterways would be dropped 

from consideration. The segments proposed for inclusion in the WSR system under this alternative are all 

located entirely on BLM-administered public lands. No costs would be incurred in land acquisition to 

manage the segments. 

For the units dropped from consideration, the impacts would be identical to those under Alternative 2. 

Lands recommended for designation would be managed to protect the values identified during the 

eligibility review. Long-term protection would be afforded the designated segments. The identified values 

would increase in value over time as development changes the majority of the planning area. Actions 

compatible with preservation would be allowed. Actions that would impair or change the nature of the 

segments would be displaced. The public lands would be closed to most surface-disturbing activities and 

would not be available for disposal, mineral leasing, or related exploration and development. 

Transmission lines, water impoundments, or diversions would not be allowed. The visual quality of the 

lands would be preserved. 

Recreational uses would generally be enhanced, and funding for management would be more readily 

available since the waterways would be part of a national system. 

The Green River segment contains a number of existing water rights and several ditches to divert the 

water. Inclusion of the Green River segment in the WSR system could help to ensure future availability of 

the water. While the proposed management actions provide for construction of some new structures, 

construction of new irrigation or water access ditches could be made more difficult by the ROW 

avoidance area and requirement that new structures not detract from the outstandingly remarkable 

characteristics of the area. 

Two of the four segments (Scab Creek and Silver Creek) are located within the Scab Creek Wilderness 

Study Area. The IMP for lands under wilderness review restricts potential uses of these lands. The 

limitations on these segments would be compatible with previously existing limitations under that policy. 

Private landowners downstream of the proposed segments hold water rights for these streams. Protection 

of the potential WSR segments would assist in making water available to these users in the future. 

Ditches to access water would be required to conform to the IMP and to the requirement that new 

structures not affect the natural qualities of the area. 

Allowing ROWs for access to adjudicated water rights would make the area compatible with existing or 

future adjudicated rights. Construction of water access facilities could detract from the naturalness of the 

area. Design of facilities to maintain the outstandingly remarkable characteristics of the area would 

minimize this impact and preserve the segment’s value as part of the WSR system. 

4-270 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

4.19 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

This section defines cumulative impacts, describes the methodology used for assessing these impacts, 

describes projects and activities considered in this assessment, and presents the results organized by 

resource topic. 

Cumulative impacts are the effects on the environment that result from implementing any of the 

alternatives in combination with other actions outside the scope of this plan, either within the planning 

area or outside it. The CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA define cumulative impacts as— 

“The impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 

taking place over a period of time.” (40 CFR §1508.7). 

The real effect of any single action cannot be determined by considering that action in isolation, but must 

be determined by considering the likely result of that action in conjunction with many others. The 

cumulative impact analysis for this Proposed RMP Final EIS evaluates the potential impacts associated 

with the management alternatives in combination with the potential impacts associated with other relevant 

activities that have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur in the vicinity of the planning area. 

4.19.1 Impact Assessment Methodology 

Land use planning is BLM’s broadest level of decisionmaking. BLM planning-level decisions are 

programmatic decisions that allocate resources or specify allowable uses in all or portions of the planning 

area to emphasize certain management direction. Site-specific actions are rarely addressed in an RMP. As 

a result, the cumulative impact analysis is also broad and general in nature. It will present ranges and 

qualitative conclusions as opposed to bounded quantified details. These cumulative impacts will then be 

considered in subsequent NEPA documents that analyze specific projects or programs. Examples include 

oil and gas field development plans, livestock grazing allotment management plans, and individual 

authorizations such as ROWs or SRPs. 

The Proposed RMP Final EIS is in itself a cumulative impact analysis, in that the decisions contained in 

each alternative form an entire program for allocation and management of uses on the public lands as a 

whole. 

Analysis and description of the identifiable present effects of past actions are required to the extent that 

they are relevant and useful in analyzing whether the reasonably foreseeable effects of the Pinedale RMP 

alternatives may have a continuing, additive, and significant relationship to those present effects. Based 

on scoping, agencies have discretion on what is useful concerning past action for the agency’s analysis of 

the effects of present action and its reasonable alternatives. BLM has focused this analysis on the current 

aggregate effects of past actions. The manifestation of past actions is the Affected Environment (Chapter 

3). Specifics presented in Chapter 3 are not repeated here. 

Effects of past actions and activities on resources are manifested in the current condition of the resource, 

which is described in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) for resources on lands administered by BLM 

within the planning area. The cumulative impact analysis is based on numerous assumptions and 

projections about future actions and their effects. Detailed information about specific future actions may 

be unavailable. General terms such as low, moderate, and high are used to describe the intensity of 

Pinedale RMP 4-271 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

effects. The cumulative impact analysis also compares the relative intensity of effects between 

alternatives. 

CEQ guidance directs cumulative impact analysis to focus on important issues of national, regional, or 

local significance. This analysis focuses on RMP actions that, when combined with other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would collectively be significant. Not all issues identified for 

direct or indirect impact assessment in this Proposed RMP Final EIS are analyzed for cumulative effects. 

Because of the wide geographic scope of a cumulative impact assessment and the variety of activities 

assessed, cumulative impacts are commonly examined at a more qualitative and less detailed level than 

are direct and indirect impacts. 

Public documents prepared by federal, state, and local government agencies are the primary sources of 

information regarding past, present, and future actions. Actions undertaken by private persons and entities 

are assumed to be captured in the information made available by such agencies. Speculative or 

uncommitted projects are not included in the projections. These projections are not planning decisions. 

Using them in this analysis does not constitute approval by BLM or any authorizing agency. These 

projections do not set a limit or cap on future BLM actions. Unforeseen changes in such factors as 

economics; public demand; and federal, state, and local laws and policies could result in different 

outcomes than those projected for this analysis. 

The potential cumulative impacts are described for each affected resource within a defined cumulative 

impact analysis area (CIAA). The CIAA covers different geographic areas depending on the specific 

resource being evaluated. The CIAAs are described in each of the resource sections below. CIAAs that 

extend beyond the planning area are largely for resources that are mobile or migrate, compared to 

resources that are stationary. For example, the air quality CIAA is large because it is based on the 

complex interaction between climatic factors, terrain, and the potential for significant impacts to occur in 

sensitive areas within the airshed. Smaller CIAAs were established for resources that are stationary such 

as cultural resources, minerals, and visual resources. In some cases these CIAAs might be the same as the 

planning area boundary. Activities and development that occur within or outside the CIAAs have the 

potential to create cumulative impacts on the specific resource being analyzed. 

BLM considered the following factors in this cumulative impact assessment: 

• Federal, nonfederal, and private actions 

• The potential for synergistic effects or outcomes 

• The potential for effects to cross political and administrative boundaries 

• Other spatial and temporal characteristics of each affected resource 

• The comparative scale of cumulative impacts across alternatives 

• Scoping comments. 

4.19.2 Projects and Activities Considered 

The following activities were identified as having the greatest likelihood to generate potential cumulative 

impacts when added to activities associated with the Pinedale RMP alternatives: 

• BLM land management plans and activities in adjacent planning areas 

• Regional oil and gas development activities (e.g., exploration, production, and pipeline 

development) 

• Regional recreation activities (e.g., hunting, OHV use, dispersed recreation) 

• Economic development activities in Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater counties. 

4-272 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

Activities and development that occur within the CIAAs have the potential to create cumulative impacts 

on the specific resource being analyzed. Oil and gas development presents the highest likelihood for 

impacts within the Pinedale planning area and in southwest Wyoming as a whole. Maps 4-3 and 4-4 show 

existing and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development projects that could fall within the various 

CIAAs. These projects are also encompassed by the oil and gas RFD for each BLM planning area in 

southwest Wyoming (Table 4-26). These numbers represent potential oil and gas development based on 

the economic and geologic potential of BLM-administered public land and mineral estate. The reasonably 

foreseeable development scenario for oil and gas within the planning area takes into account past well 

abandonment rates as well as new development in determining the level of surface disturbance anticipated 

during the life of the plan. Other actions that would create the potential for cumulative impacts are listed 

in Table 4-27, Summary of Other Activities Considered. The projects listed in these two tables are not 

presented as an exhaustive list of actions, but every effort has been made to present a representative list of 

actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts. 

Table 4-26. Summary of Oil and Gas Reasonably Foreseeable Development for Public 

Lands and Mineral Estate in Southwestern Wyoming 

Planning 

Area 

Existing 

Wells 

Public Land 

and Mineral 

Estate RFD 

Private and 

State Lands 

RFD 

Total Oil and 

Gas RFD 

Total Potential 

Wells (existing 

plus RFD) 

Kemmerer FO 1,562 1,221 1,459 2,680 4,242 

Pinedale FO 2,970 7,804 1,247 9,051 12,021 

Rawlins FO 3,450 4,087 5,111 9,198 12,648 

Rock Springs 

FO 1,800 1,200 N/A1 1,200 3,000 

Bridger-Teton 

National Forest 

N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1

Total 9,7822 14,3122 7,8172 22,1292 31,9112

1

 Not available 

2

 These totals would be increased by development in the Bridger-Teton National Forest. 

Table 4-27. Summary of Other Activities Considered 

Project Title Project Description 

“AccessYes” walk-in areas and hunter management 

areas (WGFD) 

Private acreage listed under the walk-in program is 

increasing and often provides access to enclosed BLM 

lands, as well as the private lands that are enrolled in 

the program. 

Aspen treatments 

Project includes restoration of aspen communities, 

which will improve diversity and complexity of 

watersheds and provide a healthy environment for 

those dependent resources. 

Big Sandy and Little Sandy Rivers riparian exclosures 

Designed to enhance riparian plant communities and 

fishery habitats as mitigation for sheep-to-cattle 

conversions. 

Big Sandy Rock Sill Provides artificial habitat for increasing fish populations 

in the Big Sandy River. 

BLM Wild Horse Gathers BLM wild horse gathers from habitat management 

areas (HMA) in adjacent BLM offices. 

Bone Draw Designed to increase game fish populations in the Big 

Sandy River. 

Pinedale RMP 4-273 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

4-274 Pinedale RMP 

Project Title Project Description 

Carbon Basin Coal Lease 

Projected surface mine life of 11 years with a 

production rate of initially 1.2 million tons per year, 

reaching a maximum of 4.2 million tons per year with 

total reserves of 31.1 million tons. Underground mine 

life would occur simultaneously with surface mining, 

lasting for about 17 years with an average reasonably 

foreseeable production of 6.6 million tons per year. 

Total underground mining production would be 118 

million tons. Projected reasonably foreseeable surface 

disturbance would be 288 acres per year for a total of 

4,896 acres of surface disturbance throughout the life 

of the mine. Total mine life for both surface and 

underground mining is expected to be 20 years. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the 

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS is developing a CCP for the Cokeville 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. Plan completion is 

expected in 2009. 

CCP for the National Elk Refuge 

USFWS is developing a CCP for the National Elk 

Refuge on the north side of Jackson, Wyoming. The 

25,000-acre refuge includes nearly 1,600 acres of open 

water and marsh lands, 47 different mammals, and 

nearly 175 species of birds. Plan completion is 

expected in 2006. 

CCP for the Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Completed in 2002. 

Countywide transportation development 

Planning, development, reconstruction, and 

maintenance of the county road net in two counties in 

the planning area. 

Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) conservation 

population maintenance and enhancement project 

Project includes the maintenance or restoration of 

watersheds, the spatial and temporal connectivity within 

and between watersheds, water quality or groundwater, 

and sediment regimes and transport. 

CRCT passage and road drainage features 

Project includes the reconstruction or removal of roads 

and drainages that pose risk to aquatic habitats, 

removal of culvert barriers, and removal of stream 

channel crossings. 

Eden/Farson Irrigation Project 

Furnishes an irrigation water supply for 17,010 acres in 

the vicinity of the towns of Farson and Eden in 

southwestern Wyoming. Project features include 

improvements to and maintenance of the reservoirs 

and drainage systems. 

FMC’s Proposed Haul Road 

Proposed project consisting of a paved haul road, six 

pipelines, and one fiber-optic line from FMC’s 

Westvaco mine/plant site to its Granger plant site. FMC 

is requesting a 400-foot wide corridor for construction, 

with 200-foot wide segments during operations with 

certain exceptions (i.e., cut and fill areas), and two 

bridges (to cross over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks 

and the Black's Fork River). 

Green River RMP 

Comprehensive land use plan focuses on similar 

resource issues and management to the south of the 

planning area. Green River RMP manages portions of 

the Pinedale planning area CIAAs for air, cultural, 

forestry, recreation, vegetation, VRM, watersheds, and 

wildlife management. 

Habitat Extension Services (WGFD) Habitat treatments on private lands to benefit wildlife. 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

Pinedale RMP 4-275 

Project Title Project Description 

Hay Reservoir Geophysical Project 

Proposed geophysical project that lies within the BLM 

Rock Springs Field Office planning area (55%) and the 

Rawlins Field Office planning area (45%). The south 

boundary of the proposed project lies approximately 20 

miles north of Interstate 80. It extends northward past 

Hay Reservoir and ends 3 miles north of Five Fingers 

Butte. 

Haystacks Geophysical Project Geophysical operations in the Haystacks area. The 

project has been completed. 

Jim Bridger Flue Pond Expansion Project The project is completed. 

Jonah Cryogenic Plant Cryogenic plant at terminus of the Jonah Field gasgathering system. 

Monell CO2 Pipeline Project 

Proposed CO2 pipeline-related facilities along an 

existing pipeline from the Exxon/Mobil Shute Creek 

CO2 pipeline system in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, 

to the existing Monell Federal Unit. Proposed facilities 

include metering equipment, a booster station, and 

cathodic protection. 

Native Fish Restoration (WGFD) Restore native fish to traditional waterways on private, 

state, or WGFD lands. 

PacifiCorp Point of Rocks to Rock Springs 

Transmission Powerline Project 

The project is completed. 

Pioneer Pipeline ROW 

Construction of a 12- to 16-inch refined petroleum 

pipeline across federal lands in southwest Wyoming. 

The completed pipeline extends from Sinclair, 

Wyoming, west to an existing block valve in Croydon, 

Utah. 

Quantum Geophysical Project The project is completed. 

Range-wide Three Species Conservation Agreement 

and Strategy 

In progress. This plan will include the protection of 

habitat and populations of flannelmouth sucker, 

bluehead sucker, and roundtail chubs. Activities will be 

outlined in the plan that will decrease impacts from 

federal and state management actions. 

Rock Creek riparian exclosures and habitat 

improvements 

In progress. Designed to enhance riparian habitat and 

water quality in the Rock Creek corridor, which contains 

a CRCT core conservation population. 

Sage-grouse Conservation Plans Prepared plans for recovery of the greater sage-grouse. 

South Jonah Geophysical Project 

Geophysical operations using vibroseis method to 

collect subsurface data on 400 square miles of public 

land. 

Veritas DGC Land Incorporated LaBarge 3D 

Geophysical Project 

Proposed geophysical project located west of LaBarge, 

Wyoming, in portions of Sublette and Lincoln counties. 

The general project boundaries would be LaBarge 

Creek on the south, South Piney Creek on the north, 

the Calpet Highway (State Highway 235 and Sublette 

County Road 134) on the east, and the BLM-U.S. 

Forest Service boundary on the west. 

Warren Bridge Fish Habitat Structures 

Completed/ongoing maintenance of instream structures 

that provide habitat for sport fish and native nongame 

fish species. 

Exploratory Drilling Wolverine Proposal 

Proposal for three exploratory wells north of State 

Highway 28 in Sweetwater County. Two wells have 

already been drilled. 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

4.19.3 Air Resources 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on air quality extends far beyond the planning area, as 

shown on Map 4-5. More details on regional areas of consideration and the specific locations of areas 

outside the planning area that were addressed are found in the AQTSD (Appendix 19). 

Sources of potential cumulative impacts on air quality would include emissions from CBNG and 

conventional oil and gas development on existing and new leases within and outside the planning area. 

Wildland fires and prescribed burns that occurred within the CIAA would result in impacts on air quality 

from emissions of particulates and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Impacts from wildland fires would also 

result in reduced visibility. Vehicular activity would produce emissions that could impact air quality 

primarily along the Interstate 80 corridor. 

Permitted stationary sources of air emissions would also continue to contribute to potential cumulative 

impacts on regional air quality. The Wyoming Statewide Emission Inventory conducted by TRC Mariah 

indicates that there will be an increase of future emissions of NOx, SO2, PM less than 10 microns in 

diameter (PM10), and PM less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) in the planning area and for the State 

of Wyoming. The Wyoming statewide RFD emissions increases were calculated by subtracting the statepermitted emissions through June 30, 2003, from all NEPA-authorized and other quantifiable emissions 

from June 30, 2004. The planning area emissions are 2001 base-year emissions subtracted from 2020 

emissions. Potential emissions increases are summarized in Table 4-28. For further details, refer to 

Appendix 19. 

Table 4-28. Summary of Emission Increases as Estimated by the Wyoming Statewide 

Emission Inventory and BLM Emission Inventory 

Emissions (tons per year) 

Wyoming Statewide 

Complete1 BLM Sources2

Air Pollutant 

Wyoming 

Pinedale 

Planning 

Area 

1 2 3 4 

NOx 26,511 1,719 23,524 25,050 18,877 23,170 

SO2 30 44 145 156 115 140 

PM10 (1,072) 103 4,829 5,134 3,912 4,957 

PM2.5 (1,343) 102 3,539 3,749 2,864 3,308 

1 Includes the sum of 1) all permitted source changes from January 1, 2001, through June 30, 2003; 2) Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Commission change in well emissions for 2002; and 3) reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) that refers only to oil and gas 

projects and is the change in emissions after June 30, 2003 for authorized NEPA and other quantifiable emissions. (Specifically, 

the RFD case is defined by TRC as “...1) the NEPA-authorized but not yet developed portions of the Wyoming NEPA projects, 

and 2) not yet authorized NEPA projects for which air quality analyses were in progress and for which emissions had been 

quantified.) 

2 Changes in emissions from 2001 to 2021 for the planning area (Tables A19-5 through A19-7 in Appendix 19) 

Particulate emissions estimated for the planning area (Tables A19-5 through A19-7 in Appendix 19) are 

much higher than the Wyoming statewide RFD case. This is expected because many of the particulate 

sources (for example, construction) do not require an air permit and would not be counted in the 

Wyoming Statewide RFD case, which takes into account emissions from future NEPA projects that have 

been approved and other quantifiable emissions from WDEQ permitted emissions (see footnote in the 

above table for more details). 

4-276 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

Ambient air monitoring data show low concentrations for criteria pollutants (except ozone) in the area 

(Chapter 3). Taking into account the emission information estimated for this analysis and project-specific 

air quality analyses conducted in the area such as that for the Jonah Infill Drilling project, BLM 

concluded that increases in concentrations of CO, NOx, sulfur dioxide SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 in the 

planning area are unlikely to cause an exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), because the existing concentrations are low (less than 50% of NAAQS). 

More recently, ozone data have been collected at three monitoring sites in the area beginning in 2005. 

These stations recorded elevated ozone levels during 2005, 2006, and 2008 (Table 3-5). The elevated 

ozone levels have been recorded during the winter months, primarily in February, which is an atypical 

time compared with other areas of the country where elevated ozone levels have been observed. 

Typically, ozone is thought to be a summertime problem in urban areas. Elevated ozone concentrations 

are uncommon during the winter months; however, the data collected at the three monitoring stations do 

not appear to be an anomaly because these conditions were recorded in February 2005, 2006, and 2008. 

There are several hypotheses regarding the cause(s) of these elevated ozone events, including 

stratospheric ozone intrusion, ozone transport from other areas, and a combination of unique 

meteorological, land surface, and topographical conditions acting upon local scale emissions. 

Because a quantitative relationship between the expected air emissions calculated above and the 

subsequent potential cumulative impacts on ozone and the air quality values of visibility and atmospheric 

deposition are not known, it is not possible to quantify potential impacts on these air quality values from 

the sources in the ROI. These cannot be quantified because of the complex nature of the formation of 

ozone, the complexity of visibility impairment, and atmospheric deposition in the atmosphere. 

However, because air quality analyses from recent energy development projects such as the Pinedale 

Supplemental EIS (SEIS) project (USDI, BLM 2007) and Jonah (USDI, BLM 2006) estimate potential 

impacts on visibility, emissions described in Section 4.2 might contribute to impacts on visibility (Table 

4-29 and Table 4-30). The sources modeled for Jonah and the Pinedale SEIS have some similarities to the 

Pinedale planning area analysis. 

Table 4-29. Summary of 2005 Air Quality Impacts from Well-Field Related Activities in the 

Pinedale Anticline Planning Area 

Air Quality Impact Predicted Impact Summary 

Increased concentrations of 

NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5

Predicted concentrations are in compliance with applicable National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards at all locations; 

predicted near-field concentrations are below the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) increments1

 ; predicted far-field concentrations are below 

PSD increments. 

Visibility (regional haze) at 

Class I and Sensitive Class II 

areas (far-field) 

Predicted impacts are greater than 1.0 deciview (dv) threshold for a maximum of 

75 days per year at the Bridger Wilderness, 13 days at the Fitzpatrick Wilderness, 

4 days at Grand Teton National Park, 12 days at the Gros Ventre Wilderness, 21 

days at the Popo Agie Wilderness, 612 days at the Wind River Roadless Area, 

and below 1.0 dv at all other sensitive areas. 

Visibility (regional haze) 

(mid-field communities) 

Predicted impacts are greater than 1.0 dv threshold for a maximum of 141 days 

per year at Boulder, 65 days at Cora, and 94 days at Pinedale. 

Atmospheric/terrestrial 

deposition

Predicted impacts from sulfur and nitrogen deposition are less than the total 

deposition level of concern at all analyzed areas. 

Sensitive lake acid 

neutralization capacity (ANC)

Predicted impacts resulted in less than the level of acceptable change (LAC) at all 

acid-sensitive lakes. 

1 All NEPA analysis comparisons to the PSD increments are intended to evaluate a threshold of concern and do not represent a 

regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. 

Pinedale RMP 4-277 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

Table 4-30. Summary of Potential Impacts From the Jonah Infill EIS 

Air Quality 

Component Comment 

Air Pollutant Concentrations 

Criteria Air Pollutants 

Near-field total concentrations are in compliance with applicable National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) 

Near-field project concentrations may exceed PM10 24-hour PSD Class II increment 

Far-field total concentrations are in compliance with applicable NAAQS and WAAQS 

Far-field project concentrations are well below applicable PSD Class I increments 

Visibility 

Days with > 1.0 Δdv Potential visibility impacts from the Jonah Infill project may exceed the Federal Land 

Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) visibility threshold in Bridger 

Wilderness 

Potential cumulative visibility impacts were greater than the FLAG visibility threshold in 

Bridger Wilderness and the Wind River Roadless Area 

Atmospheric Deposition 

Lake Chemistry 

LAC 

Cumulative decreases in ANC were less than the lake chemistry LAC for sensitive lakes 

1 All NEPA analysis comparisons to the PSD increments are intended to evaluate a threshold of concern and do not represent a 

regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. 

Potential impacts from Jonah and the Pinedale SEIS are included as examples of quantitative cumulative 

potential impacts. Potential impacts from the planning area may be generally similar to the potential 

impacts estimated for specific projects. For example, potential significant visibility impacts for Jonah 

suggest that planning area visibility impacts may be significant. 

The Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Infill EIS suggest visibility impacts on Bridger, Fitzpatrick, Popo Agie, 

and Wind River Roadless areas, as well as communities within the planning area. In addition, preliminary 

results from air quality analyses for BLM projects in and near the planning area suggest that potential 

impacts on visibility and atmospheric deposition may be significant. Recent monitoring within the 

planning area indicates that high ozone concentrations have occurred during the last two winters. BLM 

expects that several EISs will be available in the near future, which will provide more information 

regarding these potential impacts. These are— 

• Pinedale Anticline Revised Supplemental EIS: Contact project lead Caleb Hiner in the PFO at 

Caleb_Hiner@blm.gov

• Continental Divide/Creston: Contact project lead Dave Simons in the Rawlins FO at 

David_Simons@blm.gov

• Moxa Arch: Contact project lead Michele Easley in the Kemmerer FO at 

Michele_Easley@blm.gov

• Hiawatha: Contact project lead Susan Davis in the Rock Springs FO at Susan_Davis@blm.gov. 

BLM has chosen to describe potential air quality impacts in the Pinedale RMP and surrounding areas 

qualitatively. In the near future, BLM plans to analyze RMP cumulative far-field air quality impacts 

quantitatively with screening dispersion modeling. This would be part of a statewide analysis BLM refers 

to as the “State of the Atmosphere” study. 

4-278 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

The State of the Atmosphere study will provide an annual summary of potential cumulative far-field 

impacts on criteria air pollutant concentrations, Class I visibility, and atmospheric deposition throughout 

the State of Wyoming. BLM intends to rely on dispersion model results from the State of the Atmosphere 

study, as well as air quality monitoring and project EIS modeling results, to describe potential cumulative 

far-field air quality impacts in future BLM RMPs. 

Global Climate Change 

The assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change is still in its formative phase; 

therefore, it is not yet possible to know with confidence the net impact on climate. However, the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) recently concluded that “warming of the 

climate system is unequivocal” and “most of the observed increase in globally average temperatures since 

the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse 

gas concentrations.” 

The lack of scientific tools designed to predict climate change at regional or local scales limits the ability 

to quantify potential future impacts. However, potential impacts on air quality due to climate change are 

likely to be varied. For example, if global climate change results in a warmer and drier climate, increased 

particulate matter impacts could occur due to increased wind blown dust from drier and less stable soils. 

Cool season plant species’ spatial ranges are predicted to move north and to higher elevations, and 

extinction of endemic threatened/endangered plants may be accelerated. Due to loss of habitat or 

competition from other species whose ranges may shift northward, the population of some animal species 

may be reduced. Less snow at lower elevations would be likely to impact the timing and quantity of 

snowmelt, which, in turn, could result in a longer wildfire season. 

4.19.4 Cultural Resources 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on cultural resources includes the viewshed (5 miles) of 

the Lander Trail that extends outside the planning area (Map 4-6). Impacts on cultural resources would 

primarily be contained within the planning area, but could extend outside this area where development 

activity creates visual intrusions to the portions of the Lander Trail that extend outside the planning area. 

Potential cumulative impacts on cultural resources would result from surface-disturbing activities that 

cause erosion or vibration from traffic and/or machinery, soil compaction, and landscape alteration. Oil 

and gas development would cause the greatest amount of cumulative effect on cultural resources from 

construction of well pads, roads, pipelines, and diverse ancillary facilities. These development actions 

could result in damage to or loss of cultural resources. Direct impacts on cultural resources can occur 

from unanticipated subsurface discoveries (cultural resources discovered during project construction 

activities). Unanticipated discoveries generally result in the irretrievable loss of some or occasionally all 

of the cultural resource involved. Even when salvage excavations result in the retrieval of some or a 

substantial amount of data, the nature of archeological discovery during surface-disturbing activities 

results in the partial loss of information (e.g., spatial data, associated materials that wind up in the spoil 

piles). Surface-disturbing activities (e.g., mineral development, livestock grazing improvements, 

dispersed recreation) on private, state, and other federal lands within the CIAA would substantially 

increase the level of cumulative impact on cultural resources. 

The cumulative loss of archeological data, artifacts, and information resulting from illegal artifact 

collecting cannot be underestimated. It is estimated that virtually every new site recorded since 1990 has 

been subject to prior artifact pilfering. Because the primary target of artifact pilferers includes the 

diagnostic artifacts, collectively called “arrowheads” by the looters, loss of these diagnostic temporal 

Pinedale RMP 4-279 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

indicators has a severe impact on the archeological record. The problem is exacerbated in areas of 

development, with numerous roads accessing many areas and with concentrations of people in and 

directly adjacent to significant cultural resources. In addition, lithic and bone tools, groundstone, and even 

lithic debitage (called “chips” by collectors) are removed. Some sites recorded 20 to 30 years ago 

containing substantial surface assemblages now are completely devoid of surface archeological materials. 

When surface-disturbing activities are proposed in such areas, lack of surface material may result in 

archeological clearance. When surface-disturbing activity is then implemented, an archeological 

discovery can be made. This is one primary reason why so many unexpected discoveries occur in the 

planning area. The cumulative impact of this situation is severe. 

Rock art and rock alignment sites have suffered cumulatively. Direct impact (e.g., vandalizing the rock 

surface, excavating into or removal of the alignment) is severe at many of the recorded rock art sites in 

the planning area, such as the LaBarge Bluffs site, Chevron Petroglyphs, “Big Chief Panel” (where a 

petroglyph panel was physically removed by chiseling out a 2-foot square of the sandstone face), and the 

Calpet site. Natural erosion also has a cumulative impact, most noteworthy at the Calpet Rock Art Site, 

where the famous “bowhunter shooting an elk” petroglyph (featured on the cover of Dr. George Frison’s 

Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains, second edition) is now almost completely eroded away. The 

cumulative impact at rock art and rock alignment sites has also been severe. These sites are poorly 

understood in the overall prehistory of the planning area. Their loss or destruction results in irreparable 

damage to a rich and fascinating element of the prehistoric cultural heritage of Wyoming. 

Surface-disturbing activities that occur in close proximity to sensitive Native American sites and some 

historic sites would potentially introduce visual intrusions to those sites where the setting contributes to 

their NRHP eligibility. This would result in a cumulative loss of the integrity of the setting of sensitive 

Native American sites and the viewshed of historic trails. This has been the case, for example, along the 

Lander Trail in the Deer Hills area and in direct proximity to the “Piney Rock Art site” (private surface), 

where an operator placed an oil well and pump jack whose grasshopper pump is run 24 hours a day, 7 

days a week by a noisy diesel motor. The cumulative impact is the direct introduction of visible, audible, 

and atmospheric elements that are out of character with the historic property. 

Projects implemented on land owned by the State of Wyoming and on private surface where BLM’s 

cultural resource process does not apply could result in substantial cumulative effects. For example, BLM 

took substantial measures to protect and manage the Lander Trail where it was crossed by the Anticline 

development. Development of the lone State of Wyoming section resulted in a large gas pad development 

100 yards from the Lander Trail that lacked any screening, visual mitigation, or other protective 

measures. This lone project directly impacted and will result in a cumulative adverse effect to the Lander 

Trail setting, despite some 5 years of concerted effort among BLM, SHPO, the Oregon-California Trails 

Association, Shell Oil, and Ultra Resources to maintain an intact historic setting. 

Changes in private land use and zoning have resulted in substantial alteration of historic setting along the 

Lander Trail. The Fairbanks/Schwabacher development at Sand Springs and the subdivision proposed 

along the Lander Trail just west of the New Fork River are two examples. Development on private 

surface has had considerable cumulative impacts on the Lander Trail and Sublette Cutoff. In some areas, 

the trails have been obliterated (for example, the Sublette Cutoff by U.S. Highway 189; portions of the 

Lander Trail west of Buckskin Crossing). In other areas of private land, the Trail has demonstrated a 

remarkable resilience (e.g., by Muddy Creek and up South Piney Creek) but the setting has been 

compromised by ranch development (e.g., buildings, corrals, irrigated meadows). 

The cumulative effect on archeological resources—especially on private land, but also on state land—has 

been monumental. Because so much of the private land in Sublette County was deeded because of direct 

proximity to perennial water sources, the past 130 years of agricultural development has been 

4-280 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

concentrated here. These extremely high prehistoric site density areas have been impacted the greatest, 

primarily by irrigation projects, but also by the very fact of ranch construction, the growth of towns, and 

general private land development. 

Potential impacts on cultural resources would be in part mitigated by CRMP actions; implementation of 

federal regulatory laws, actions, and guidelines designed to protect cultural resources; and through 

consultation processes with the SHPO and Native American tribal representatives. However, it is 

anticipated that such measures would not prevent many impacts from occurring. Severe impacts would be 

likely to occur in situations in which undocumented NRHP-eligible archeological sites are impacted but 

not recognized. Significant impacts would also likely occur to the Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails as a 

result of oil and gas development and to select sites considered sensitive to Native Americans because of 

further encroachment of the viewshed and natural setting. 

Instances in which BLM is involved in project permitting, potential impacts on NRHP-eligible 

archeological sites would be less likely to occur under Alternative 3 and (to a lesser extent) under 

Alternative 4, as a result of fewer proposed developments, more restrictive stipulations, and less overall 

surface disturbance. Potential impacts on historic sites and trails would be least likely to occur under 

Alternative 3 because of additional restrictions on oil and gas and other development, increased visual and 

surface-disturbing buffers around the Lander and Sublette Cutoff Trails, and the designation of a VRM 

Class II area around the Lander Trail. Alternative 2 would present the greatest potential for impacts on 

historic sites and trails because of a lack of restrictions on oil and gas and other development. 

4.19.5 Forestry 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on forest management extends outside the planning area, 

following fourth-order watershed (eight-digit Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]) boundaries (Map 4-7). The 

CIAA is composed of fourth-order watersheds that completely or partially overlap the planning area. The 

fourth-order watersheds were used as the basic unit of analysis because the scope of cumulative influence 

would be at the watershed scale and is not expected to extend beyond this scale. 

Some of the cumulative impacts on forest management would result from surface-disturbing actions that 

remove forest cover. Because mineral development activities would take place mainly outside of forested 

areas, cumulative impacts would be minimal. However, woodland forest communities occur in areas that 

have a higher potential for oil and gas development, thus creating the potential for impacts on these areas. 

Impacts would include direct removal of forest cover to develop well sites, roads, and surface 

infrastructure. These areas would be taken out of timber harvest production for the life of the well or 

mining operations. Mineral resource development activity can also benefit forest management by 

providing opportunities for increased accessibility to potential harvest or management areas. 

Management actions designed to protect sensitive resources would, in some cases, result in the exclusion 

of forestland from harvesting of forest products or other mechanical forest health treatments, limiting 

options available for forest stand restoration. 

Cumulative impacts of forestry under Alternative 2 would be substantive. Alternative 2 emphasizes 

commercial production of forest products without emphasis on restoration or old growth outside of the 

HFRA-defined old-growth stands. The continued emphasis on production would emphasize larger tree 

removal and commercial use of the woodlands. Studies in Montana after the 2000 fires showed that 

stands harvested with emphasis on commercial timber burned at higher intensities and caused more soil 

damage than in unlogged areas. Restoration to more fire-resilient and -resistant stands would not occur. 

Pinedale RMP 4-281 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

Cumulative impacts under Alternatives 3 and 4 would also be substantive. The focus of these alternatives 

is on restoration of the forest and woodlands of the planning area to presuppression composition structure 

and function. These alternatives potentially would treat many more acres than under Alternative 2 and 

concentrate on small tree removal and removal of insect- and disease-affected trees. Woodland treatments 

in these alternatives could treat up to 700 acres per year. In the long term, this aggressive restoration of 

forests and woodlands would impact the structure, composition, and function of these areas in a shorter 

time span than Alternative 2. This would affect not only the vegetation, but also VRM by creating a more 

varied vegetative mosaic on the landscape, replicating presuppression landscapes. Cumulative effects 

would also occur to fire management. Restoring aspen stands would create natural fuel breaks to limit the 

spread of large wildland fires. Restoration of fire-resilient vegetation would also open more AMR options 

for suppression activities and make WFURB management easier and more cost effective. 

4.19.6 Lands and Realty Management 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on the uses administered by the lands and realty program 

includes the entire planning area. 

Impacts on lands and realty management would result from actions that affect the location and design of 

proposed ROWs. These actions are primarily the result of implementing surface use restrictions (e.g., 

VRM designations, land use closures, NSO stipulations) and management prescriptions designed to 

protect natural resources. These actions would limit or restrict ROW project design and where ROWs 

would be permitted. The greatest impacts would occur in areas managed to meet VRM Class II 

objectives, as avoidance or exclusion areas for ROWs, and in areas managed with NSO stipulations. 

The actions and activities considered in this analysis, including land use restrictions for the preservation 

of sensitive resources, would not prevent BLM from accommodating major utility and transportation 

corridors. The degree of impact would be lowest under Alternative 2 because of fewer land use 

restrictions for the protection of sensitive resources. Conversely, the implementation of increased 

restrictions to protect sensitive resources under Alternative 3 would result in the greatest level of impact 

on lands and realty. 

4.19.7 Livestock Grazing 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on livestock grazing includes all grazing allotments within 

the planning area (Map 3-4). Livestock are managed within the boundaries of these allotments and 

therefore could be affected by activities occurring in these areas. 

Potential cumulative impacts on livestock grazing operations would result from a combination of 

activities and land uses occurring within the CIAA. Such impacts would result primarily from surfacedisturbing activities, human disturbance, and the presence of wildlife that compete with livestock for 

rangeland resources. These activities result in livestock displacement, direct removal and indirect 

degradation of forage, and direct and indirect costs to the grazing permittee. Reclamation efforts and 

vegetation treatments would reduce impacts on livestock grazing; however, construction of roads and well 

pads and the constant presence of humans and wildlife would result in long-term and/or permanent 

impacts. 

An increase in human population would create additional demands for recreational use of the public lands 

used for grazing and could result in livestock displacement, increases in noxious weed infestation, and 

costs to operators and public land management areas. 

4-282 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

As the demand for housing increases, ranchlands could be converted to subdivisions; the subsequent 

reduction of base properties would lead to grazing permit transfers and possibly grazing permit 

relinquishment. 

Oil and gas development activities and related construction of roads, pipelines, and well pads would lead 

to a cumulative increase in soil disturbance, vegetation removal, noxious and invasive weed proliferation, 

and livestock displacement. Impacts would be greater in areas with high-density mineral development 

projects. These impacts could result in substantial rangeland degradation and thereby jeopardize 

compliance with the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health (USDI, BLM 1997) on some allotments. 

The implementation of BLM’s mitigation guidelines, reclamation requirements, restrictions on surface 

use, rangeland guidelines, vegetation treatments, and monitoring efforts would provide protection to 

forage resources on federal lands, which would help reduce overall effects on livestock grazing resources 

and operations. 

The promotion of natural fire in the ecosystem, along with vegetation treatments to improve habitats, will 

place more of the vegetation communities in the lower seral stage. Generally, this improves and increases 

the forage resource, and from the standpoint of the CIAA, would offset forage losses that may occur from 

large-scale industrial development. 

4.19.8 Minerals 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on minerals management includes the entire planning area. 

Management activities occurring within the planning area are not expected to affect mineral resource 

management outside of the planning area. 

Leasable Minerals 

Cumulative impacts on mineral development would occur from surface use restrictions (e.g., VRM 

designations, closure/withdrawal, NSO, CSU, and seasonal limitations) that ultimately result in a decrease 

in the number of oil and gas wells drilled during the planning period, withdrawal of lands from locatable 

mineral entry, and closure of areas to salable mineral development. Surface use restrictions, such as 

timing restrictions, could also cause an operator to move to nearby private or state land with no such 

restrictions, and drill a well that could result in drainage of federal reserves and a loss of federal revenue. 

Such restrictions are implemented to protect sensitive resources and prevent user and resource conflicts. 

The evaluation of cumulative impacts on mineral development activity considers the relative changes in 

the level of mineral resource development among the various alternatives (Table 4-2, on page 4-51). Oil 

and gas development is expected to continue under all alternatives, with Alternative 2 having the greatest 

amount of wells drilled during the planning period, and Alternative 3 the least because of restrictions for 

protection of sensitive resources. 

Alternative 1 would be the second least restrictive to oil and gas exploration and development activities. 

The 7,192 wells (federal minerals) projected under this alternative would potentially extract 19,104 BCF 

of natural gas and 157 million barrels of oil over the life of the plan, which represents a 7% reduction in 

the projected number of wells and a 5% reduction in the projected gas and oil volume from the 

unrestricted estimates. Approximately 172,500 acres would be unavailable for fluid mineral leasing, 

exploration, development, or production. Existing leased in-holdings in this latter category would be 

available for exploration, development, and production, as prescribed in the lease contract. Approximately 

41,300 acres would be constrained by an NSO restriction. Under the NSO, federal fluid minerals could be 

leased, but the leaseholder/operator would have to use offsite methods such as directional drilling to 

access the mineral resource. About 253,220 acres would be constrained by CSU restrictions. Under this 

Pinedale RMP 4-283 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

designation, federal oil and gas minerals could be leased. Surface disturbance would be prohibited or 

restricted, but development could occur if the impact on the affected resource were mitigated. 

Approximately 936,050 acres would be available for leasing and development, but would be constrained 

by TLSs. TLS restrictions limit the time of the year activities could occur. About 187,540 acres would be 

available for fluid mineral leasing and development with standard lease stipulations. 

Alternative 2 would be the least restrictive to oil and gas exploration and development activities because a 

larger percent of the planning area would be available for leasing without major restrictions. The 7,804 

wells (federal minerals) 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, which is a 1% reduction in the projected 

number of wells and projected gas and oil volume from the unrestricted estimates. Approximately 

175,040 acres of federal mineral estate would be available for intensive fluid mineral leasing, exploration, 

development, and production; approximately 1,014,462 acres would be designated Traditional Leasing 

Areas and would be available for restricted fluid mineral leasing, exploration, development, and 

production; and 21,850 acres would be unavailable for leasing, exploration, development, and production. 

Existing leased in-holdings in this latter category would be available for exploration, development, and 

production, as prescribed in the lease contract. 

Alternative 3 would be the most restrictive to the development of leasable minerals, primarily because a 

greater amount of the planning area would be unavailable for leasing or a greater array of leasable mineral 

development activities would be subject to NSO, CSU, and timing stipulations (Table 2-32, p. 2-169 and 

Table 2-33, p. 2-176). These actions would potentially lead to a delay in development and/or moving of 

well locations, access roads, pipeline, or ancillary facilities. As established in the Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives, Impacts from Alternative 1, and Impacts from Alternative 2 sections, fluid mineral resources 

underlying lands unavailable to leasing and without remnant existing leases would be unrecoverable. 

Resources underlying areas unavailable for leasing, but with remnant existing leases would require 

substantial mitigation or offsite development actions such as directional drilling and would experience 

increased development costs. Leased hydrocarbon resources located beyond the technical or economic 

reach of directional drilling would be considered inaccessible and therefore unrecoverable. 

The 5,209 wells (federal minerals) 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, which is a 28% reduction in the 

projected number of wells and an 18% reduction in projected gas and oil volume from the unrestricted 

estimates. It is also a 23% reduction in the number of wells projected and a 13% reduction when 

compared to Alternative 1. Approximately 67,210 acres would be available for intensive fluid mineral 

leasing, exploration, development, and production; approximately 420,780 acres would be designated 

Traditional Leasing Areas and would be available for restricted fluid mineral leasing, exploration, 

development, and production; and 641,821 acres would be unavailable for leasing, exploration, 

development, and production. Existing leased in-holdings in this latter category would be available for 

exploration, development, and production, as prescribed in the lease contract. 

Overall, the management actions proposed under Alternative 4 would result in impacts similar to those 

under Alternative 1; however, a substantial amount of the planning area (441,100 acres) would still be 

unavailable for fluid mineral development (Table 2-32, p. 2-169 and Table 2-33, p. 2-176). As established 

in the Impacts Common to All Alternatives, Impacts from Alternative 1, and Impacts from Alternative 2 

sections, fluid mineral resources underlying lands unavailable to leasing and without remnant existing 

leases would be unrecoverable. Resource underlying areas unavailable for leasing, but with remnant 

existing leases would require substantial mitigation or offsite development actions such as directional 

drilling and would experience increased development costs. Leased hydrocarbon resources located 

beyond the technical or economic reach for directional drilling would be considered inaccessible and 

therefore unrecoverable. 

4-284 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

The 7,136 wells (federal minerals) projected under this alternative would potentially extract 19,168 BCF 

of natural gas and 150 million barrels of oil over the life of the plan, which is an 8% reduction in the 

projected number of wells, a 5% reduction in projected gas and oil volume from the unrestricted 

estimates, and a 1% reduction from Alternative 1. Approximately 175,040 acres in Intensively Developed 

Fields would be available for intensive fluid mineral leasing, exploration, development, and production; 

approximately 465,210 acres would be designated Traditional Leasing Areas and would be available for 

restricted fluid mineral leasing, exploration, development, and production; and 441,100 acres would be 

unavailable for leasing, exploration, development, and production. Existing leased in-holdings in NSOs 

and Unavailable Areas would be available for exploration, development, and production, as granted by 

the lease contract. 

The projects and activities considered are not expected to cause the costs of development and extraction 

to escalate to the point where the economics of leasable mineral development would be marginal. 

Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts on coal are anticipated. 

Locatable Minerals 

Cumulative impacts on mineral development would occur from surface use restrictions (e.g., VRM 

designations, closure/withdrawal, NSO, CSU, and seasonal limitations) that ultimately result in 

withdrawal of lands from locatable mineral entry. Locatable minerals in the planning area are considered 

to have low or no potential for development. Impacts on such marginal deposits that are individually 

minor may cumulatively reduce or prevent exploration and production of locatable commodities. This 

effect would be at a maximum level under Alternative 3, which has the most cumulative seasonal and 

spatial restrictions. The least restrictions would be under Alternative 2, with Alternative 4 being between 

the two as far as cumulative impacts. 

Cumulative impacts that would totally preclude locatable mineral development would result from the 

withdrawal of land from mineral location. The largest cumulative acreages for withdrawals are under 

Alternative 3, with Alternative 2 being the least restrictive and Alternative 4 being between the other two. 

Mineral resources in other ownerships may not be developed if the adjacent public lands are withdrawn 

from mineral entry, because the deposit may not be economically feasible to develop if only a portion is 

available. 

The projects and activities considered are not expected to cause a substantial reduction in the 

development of locatable minerals. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts on locatable minerals are 

anticipated. 

Salable Minerals 

The cumulative impacts on salable minerals are tied closely to the level of oil and gas development, 

because more wells and access roads will require more aggregate. Cumulative impacts on mineral 

development would occur from surface use restrictions (e.g., VRM designations, closure/withdrawal, 

NSO, and CSU) that ultimately result in a decrease in the closure of areas to salable mineral development. 

Also, the cumulative level of various temporal and spatial restrictions will affect salable development. 

Those restrictions, which would also adversely affect the probable level of oil and gas development, are at 

a maximum under Alternative 3 and lowest under Alternative 2. 

Salable minerals development is also closely tied to available access and distance from point of use. 

Anything that restricts access or results in a longer haul distance because of relocation of the mining 

operation could make the particular salable mineral deposit uneconomic to develop. Alternative 3 would 

be most likely to restrict salable minerals in this way. Surface use restrictions, such as timing restrictions 

Pinedale RMP 4-285 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

for wildlife, could also cause an operator to move to nearby state or private land with no such restrictions 

and open a pit that creates additional surface disturbance as well as loss of federal revenue. 

The projects and activities considered are not expected to cause a substantial reduction in the 

development of common variety minerals. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts on common 

variety minerals are anticipated. 

4.19.9 Paleontology and Natural History 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on paleontological resources includes the entire planning 

area. Management activities occurring within the planning area are not expected to affect paleontological 

resources outside of the planning area. 

Potential cumulative impacts on paleontological resources would result primarily from surface-disturbing 

activities that cause erosion or vibration from traffic and/or machinery, soil compaction, and landscape 

alteration. Such activity could result in exposure, damage, and/or destruction of paleontological resources. 

The policies associated with the paleontological resource management program, which require 

identification and mitigation of paleontological resources prior to surface-disturbing activities, would help 

to reduce potential impacts. Implementation of these requirements would also increase the potential for 

identification, recordation, and collection of paleontological resources. However, even with identification 

and mitigation requirements, the potential exists for damage or destruction of previously unknown 

paleontological resources discovered during construction. In addition, OHV use, dispersed recreation, and 

other surface-disturbing activities not subject to a permitting process could result in exposure, damage, or 

destruction of paleontological resources. 

Surface-disturbing and recreational activities that occur on private and state lands would result in 

substantial impacts on paleontological resources because of the lack of legal protections afforded to these 

resources on these lands. Approximately 400,000 acres of state and private land occurs within the CIAA, 

on which activities and development are expected to cause substantial damage to or destruction of 

paleontological resources or result in the improper collection of scientifically important paleontological 

resources. 

Because of the legal protections afforded paleontological resources, there are no substantial differences in 

the potential for cumulative impacts among the management alternatives. 

4.19.10 Recreation and Visitor Services 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on recreation resources includes the planning area, all big 

game herd units that intersect the planning area, and the CIAA for greater sage-grouse (Map 4-8). 

Wildlife populations are managed within these boundaries and therefore could be impacted by activities 

occurring in these areas. Because hunting is a major recreation activity within the planning area, any 

activities that affect game populations would in turn impact recreation activities and reduce recreation 

benefits. 

Cumulative impacts on recreation would potentially occur from a mixture of land uses that results in 

conflicts for unconfined, dispersed recreational opportunities. Such impacts are a result of both increased 

recreational activity occurring within and outside of the planning area and user conflicts generated from 

planned actions. Surface-disturbing activities (primarily oil and gas development) would alter recreational 

settings and degrade some recreational experiences through increased visual intrusions, noise levels, 

traffic volumes, and concerns for public health and safety. In areas where development occurs, hunting 

4-286 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

opportunities would be diminished because of the displacement or loss of game animals. This would 

further increase cumulative effects on recreation by degrading a major recreation activity. Seasonal 

restrictions designed to protect sensitive resources could reduce recreational opportunities for some users 

by limiting access to certain areas; however, such restrictions could also enhance the experience of other 

users who desire solitude and primitive recreation opportunities. Cumulative impacts would likely be 

greater in all portions of the CIAA where mineral development is more intense, and near state and private 

lands because of the lack of protections afforded to natural resources in these areas. 

Major cumulative impacts on recreation would likely occur under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, because 

activities within the CIAA would result in long-term elimination or reduction of recreation use and 

increased use at developed facilities as user demand for visitor amenities increases. Under these 

alternatives, the current and projected pace of development in some moderate-to-high potential fluid 

mineral development areas would displace recreation users. Recreationists would likely avoid large tracts 

of public lands where fluid mineral-related activities occur and wildlife or other values are diminished, 

displaced, or substantially altered. Recreation use would likely diminish as the landscape and associated 

scenic qualities evolve from backcountry or middle country to urban. Cumulative impacts would be most 

extensive under Alternative 2 because of increased development and fewer restrictions to protect sensitive 

resources. 

4.19.11 Socioeconomics 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on socioeconomics extends beyond the planning area, 

which is made up of Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater counties (Map 3-7). The socioeconomic impacts 

of BLM actions on these counties are described in Section 4.10. The cumulative socioeconomic impacts 

associated with oil and gas development throughout southwestern Wyoming extends beyond the study 

area boundaries. The cumulative socioeconomic impacts associated with oil and gas development and 

production in southwestern Wyoming are summarized in Table 4-26, which includes oil and gas activities 

in Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices and Bridget-Teton National Forest. Examining 

the cumulative socioeconomic oil and gas activity reveals that the percentage of existing wells within the 

PFO accounts for 30% of the total amount of existing wells in southwestern Wyoming. The potential for 

total wells within PFO represents 38% of total estimated wells in southwestern Wyoming, although it is 

likely a smaller percentage since Bridger-Teton estimates were not available and were therefore not 

included in the estimates. 

The cumulative oil and gas activity expected to occur throughout southwestern Wyoming will likely 

increase the intensity of the social and economic impacts in the region. For example, the oil and gas boom 

currently occurring throughout portions of southwestern Wyoming has already intensified the demand for 

housing, social services, law enforcement, infrastructure, services addressing drug use, and others. 

Therefore, as the oil and gas sector continues to expand at an accelerated pace, it is reasonable to assume 

that the socioeconomic impacts will be intensified throughout that region of the state. There will also be a 

substantial increase in employment labor income and mineral tax revenues paid to local, state, and federal 

government entities. 

The intensity of development in the oil and gas sector is determined by pace and timing, which are 

determined to a large extent by public policy and also by market forces. Even though leasing of oil and 

gas is a discretionary action, the pace of development reflects market forces established by various factors 

beyond the management decision of BLM. These include national and international energy demand and 

prices, production factors within the CIAA, and business strategies of operators. As a result, it is difficult 

to estimate the pace of development, which means the actual cumulative impacts might vary if the rate of 

Pinedale RMP 4-287 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

production changes during the study period. It also means that the intensity and duration of the boom will 

vary depending on pace, and the resultant bust will be heightened if pace is accelerated. 

It is likely that communities within the study area will be affected by the “boom and bust” cycle and the 

intensity or magnitude of this cycle will be a function of pace. Moreover, it is anticipated that this 

phenomenon will likely cause hardships for areas that must improve or expand infrastructure and services 

to accommodate the large, temporary increases in population. However, these hardships will be offset to 

some extent by the tax revenues generated by the oil and gas activity. 

As mentioned above, many of the cumulative socioeconomic impacts associated with oil and gas 

development are already occurring in the region. Assuming that the current pace of development is either 

sustained or increased, the demand for oil and gas employees will continue to outstrip the supply. 

Moreover, it is likely that individuals from outside the area will continue filling the bulk of these jobs into 

the future. Even though many of the oil and gas workers come from outside the region, it is likely there 

will be a growth in population in certain parts of the study area that can be directly attributed to the oil 

and gas development. 

Increasing employment from oil and gas development throughout southwestern Wyoming is expected to 

impact communities such as Rock Springs, Green River, Kemmerer, Pinedale, Rawlins, and the other 

small communities scattered throughout the area. But the ability to absorb the anticipated impacts will 

vary depending on the individual community’s ability to absorb the anticipated growth. Nonetheless, even 

though Rock Springs had undergone declines in population back in the 1990s, because it serves as an oil 

and gas service center, it too, will feel the pressures associated with the oil and gas boom, as will 

communities like Rawlins, Green River, Pinedale, and Kemmerer. The larger impacted communities in 

southwestern Wyoming may be in a slightly better position to absorb increases in population relative to 

the smaller ones. If the oil and gas development continues at either the current pace or an accelerated 

pace, all of the impacted communities will be challenged to keep up with the demands associated with 

rapid oil and gas development. For instance, communities and unincorporated areas that are impacted as 

new individuals move into the area might not be able to fully absorb changes in population as they occur. 

If these increases occur in the short term, many of these communities will likely experience a boom and 

bust cycle that is driven by oil and gas development. 

Increased oil and gas development throughout the region will increase the mineral tax revenues and 

royalty payments that can be used by local and state government to help mitigate the anticipated impacts. 

For some counties, the increases are expected to be significant and will remain a major source of revenue 

for many years to come for various jurisdictions. 

It should be noted that even though substantial tax revenues and royalty payments are produced from oil 

and gas activity, rapid oil and gas development can alter the attitudes and opinions of local area residents. 

Generally, this happens because of an increase in conflicts between conservation-minded individuals and 

groups and the pro-development community. Despite these conflicts, residents within the CIAA have long 

held the opinion that a need exists to balance conservation of natural resources with the economic 

viability of resource-based industries. As such, residents generally support the development of minerals 

and energy, as long as these activities do not damage wildlife habitat or degrade the quality of recreational 

experiences. Consequently, some local residents will support further development activities, whereas 

others will be dissatisfied if development activities were to reduce hunting opportunities or degrade 

recreational activities. In addition, others might be dissatisfied if areas within the CIAA are not left in an 

undisturbed state. 

Changes in population trends in the study area brought on by increased oil and gas development may 

cause a change in custom and culture, because some areas have a long-standing history of growth driven 

4-288 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

by minerals development, and some do not. For example, communities such as Rock Springs and Rawlins 

developed, in part, around mineral extraction industries; therefore, they would likely support oil and gas 

development. However, other communities that have been more dependent on, for example, agriculture 

and recreation, may be less inclined to welcome the changes in custom and culture as population changes 

to support an economy dominated by oil and gas activity. But it is inevitable that changes will occur and 

will likely bring to the area new individuals who might possess different opinions and values from current 

residents. This can lead to changes in overall social trends in localized areas. 

No significant cumulative impacts on environmental justice would occur under any alternative, because 

minority and/or low-income populations would not be disproportionately affected compared with other 

segments of the general population. 

4.19.12 Soils 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on soils includes the entire planning area. As with the 

alternative impact analysis, cumulative impacts on the soil resource focus on accelerated soil erosion. 

Surface-disturbing activities occurring within the planning area are not expected to affect soil resources 

outside the planning area. However, watershed impacts (sediment delivery to stream systems, 

sedimentation, changes in frequency, duration and volume runoff) could extend beyond the planning area. 

Cumulative impacts on soils would result from all surface-disturbing activities and the associated 

accelerated erosion. Oil and gas development activities and related construction of roads, pipelines, and 

well pads would be the primary cause of such disturbance, though activities such as OHV use, forestry 

and woodland treatments, vegetation management, and nonenergy surface-disturbing activities would all 

contribute cumulatively. Impacts would be more severe in the southern portions of the CIAA where 

development is more intense. Impacts from the ubiquitous extent of livestock grazing would be in 

addition to surface disturbances throughout the planning area. These impacts are exacerbated by erosion 

occurring from past actions, such as the historic down-cutting of streams and ephemeral drainages and 

those parts of the road network that were poorly designed or resulted from unregulated OHV use. Such 

actions have altered the timing and frequency of runoff and associated soil erosion. The narrow confined 

channels resulting from incision and head cuts, and the subsequent base-level adjustments, have resulted 

in a drainage system in which water exits the watershed more rapidly and with greater energy. 

The implementation of BLM’s mitigation guidelines, restrictions on surface use, continued 

implementation of healthy rangeland standards, and monitoring efforts would provide protection to soils 

on federal lands and lands with federal subsurface minerals, which would help reduce cumulative effects. 

The mitigation methods discussed above would have little impact on approximately 400,000 acres within 

the CIAA that are in state and private ownership. The absence of more stringent requirements for surfacedisturbing activities and political and economic pressures for development could result in greater soil loss 

on state and private lands. These impacts would not vary substantially among the alternatives because 

activities on state and private lands would not be affected by management of BLM-administered lands. 

4.19.13 Transportation, Access, and Travel Management 

Transportation and Access 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on the uses administered by the transportation and access 

program includes the entire planning area. 

Pinedale RMP 4-289 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

Impacts on transportation and access management would result from actions that affect the location and 

design of proposed projects. These actions are primarily the result of implementing surface use 

restrictions (e.g., VRM designations, land use closures, NSO stipulations) and management prescriptions 

designed to protect natural resources. These actions would limit or restrict transportation project design 

and where transportation systems would be permitted. The greatest impacts would occur in areas 

managed to meet VRM Class II objectives, as avoidance or exclusion areas for transportation, and in 

areas managed with NSO stipulations. 

The actions and activities considered in this analysis, including land use restrictions for the preservation 

of sensitive resources, would not result in the inability of BLM to accommodate major transportation 

corridors. The degree of impact would be lowest under Alternative 2 because of fewer land use 

restrictions for the protection of sensitive resources. Conversely, the implementation of increased 

restrictions to protect sensitive resources under Alternative 3 would result in the greatest level of impact 

on transportation and access. 

Off-Highway Vehicle Management 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on OHV management includes the entire planning area. 

Management activities occurring within the planning area are not expected to affect OHV management 

outside of the planning area. 

Potential effects on OHV use would result primarily from mineral development activities, which increase 

the amount of roads available for OHV use. However, such development would also increase traffic on 

roads and trails and increase the potential for long-term conflicts between commercial and recreational 

use of these roads. Construction of pipelines, fences, and transmission lines would increase hazards to 

OHV users and reduce public safety in certain areas. 

Potential long-term and short-term cumulative impacts on OHV use would also occur from land use 

restrictions established to protect sensitive resources. Such restrictions would include seasonal, 

temporary, or complete OHV closures in sensitive areas of the planning area, which would cause a 

cumulative decrease in the amount of area available to OHV use. 

The potential for cumulative impacts on OHV management would be similar under all alternatives 

because of the similarities in management prescriptions. However, the greatest potential for cumulative 

impacts on OHV management would occur under Alternative 3 because of increased surface use 

restrictions and permanent road closures (closed on 30,350 acres versus 13,620 and 8,400 acres under 

Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively). 

4.19.14 Vegetation 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on vegetation extends outside the planning area, following 

fourth-order watershed (eight-digit HUC) boundaries (Map 4-9). The CIAA is composed of fourth-order 

watersheds that completely or partially overlap the planning area. Fourth-order watersheds were used as 

the basic unit of analysis because the scope of cumulative influence would be at the watershed scale and 

is not expected to extend beyond this scale. 

Cumulative effects on vegetation within the CIAA would result primarily from surface-disturbing 

activities that directly remove vegetation, such as mineral development and associated infrastructure, 

rangeland improvements, and dispersed recreation. This would also indirectly affect vegetation by 

reducing the forage base, thereby increasing wildlife and livestock grazing on existing vegetation 

4-290 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

resources. Furthermore, the displacement of wildlife associated with surface-disturbing and other 

disruptive activities would also serve to increase grazing on nondisturbed vegetation resources. Surface 

disturbance would increase the proliferation of noxious and invasive weeds, which would increase the 

need for weed-controlling activities. Vegetation treatments would cause short-term impacts on vegetation 

by decreasing vegetation production and increasing establishment of early successional species. Longterm effects would include increased production and diversity of vegetation communities. 

Oil and gas development would cause the greatest amount of surface disturbance through construction of 

well pads, roads, pipelines, and other facilities. Cumulative impacts would likely be greater in the 

southern portions of the CIAA where mineral development is more intense, and on state and private lands 

because of the lack of protections afforded to natural resources in these areas. Special Status Plant 

Species, under the ESA and Wyoming BLM sensitive species guidance, would be protected on federal 

lands by site-specific mitigation, including exclusion or avoidance of all surface-disturbing activities; 

however, protection of these species on private and state lands may not occur, resulting in potentially 

significant impacts on these species. 

The degree of impact on vegetation communities would depend on the timing of activities and whether 

the amount of activity within the CIAA outpaces successful reclamation and revegetation efforts in 

disturbed areas. The implementation of BLM’s mitigation guidelines, best management practices, and 

restrictions on surface use would help to reduce overall effects. However, given the level of anticipated 

mineral development and that most of the native shrub communities (e.g., sagebrush) require in excess of 

20 years to reestablish to pre-disturbance conditions, surface disturbance impacts are expected under all 

alternatives, with the greatest amount of impacts on the plant communities being found under Alternative 

2. Impacts under Alternatives 3 and 4 would be similar but to a lesser extent. Development activities 

under all the alternatives would result in the removal of unique attributes of vegetation communities and 

would also reduce the ability of vegetation resources to support other resource values. In addition, all 

alternatives would result in substantial proliferation of noxious and invasive weeds into areas considered 

weed-free, and a substantial increase would occur in noxious and invasive weeds where they already 

exist. 

4.19.15 Visual Resources 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on visual resources includes the planning area and the 

viewshed (5 miles) of the Lander Trail that extends outside the planning area (Map 4-10). Most of the 

effects on visual resources would be limited to the planning area; however, activities occurring within the 

planning area have the potential to create visual intrusions into the viewshed of the Lander Trail. 

Potential impacts on visual resource management would result primarily from surface disturbance 

activities that cause visual intrusions and degrade the visual quality of the CIAA. Activities related to oil 

and gas development, wind energy projects, pipeline projects, and communication towers would have the 

potential to degrade visual resources and result in inconsistencies with VRM Class objectives. 

Cumulative impacts would likely be greater in the southern portions of the CIAA where mineral 

development is more intense, and near state and private lands because of BLM’s lack of authority on 

these lands. 

Impacts would be greatest under Alternative 2 because of increased mineral development and fewer 

surface use restrictions. Impacts would be least extensive under Alternative 3, which provides the greatest 

protection to VRM Class I and II areas and proposes the lowest level of oil and gas development. 

Activities and actions considered in this analysis are not anticipated to be incompatible with designated 

VRM Class objectives. 

Pinedale RMP 4-291 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

4.19.16 Watershed and Water Quality 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on water quality and watershed resources extends outside 

the planning area, following fourth-order watershed (eight-digit HUC) boundaries (Map 4-11). The CIAA 

is composed of fourth-order watersheds that completely or partially overlap the planning area. Fourthorder watersheds were used as the basic unit of analysis because impacts from management actions 

proposed under the final RMP and other existing activity plans are not expected to have cumulative, 

hydrologic influence beyond this scale. Given that hydrologic influence of the surrounding area is 

primarily focused in the stream channels and that delineation of the CIAA was based on watershed 

boundaries, the area of analysis is sufficient. The hydrologic influence of the planning area on areas 

outside the planning area is primarily the result of the timing and quality of the water flowing from the 

area. This effect extends down the main drainage channels (Snake and Green Rivers) for varying 

distances depending on the volume and content of the flows. 

In general, degradation of the water resource can be a rapid process, whereas recovery is often much 

slower. The cumulative impacts on watersheds and water quality are dependent primarily on the health of 

the vegetative community, the amount of surface disturbance, the amount of pollutants, and the degree to 

which groundwater quality and quantity are degraded through human activity. 

BMPs, reclamation efforts, and monitoring of environmental conditions all work to minimize the impacts 

of development and the resulting disturbance to the hydrologic cycle, but they are not completely 

effective. Therefore, the greater the level of disturbance, through whatever source and means, to the 

vegetation, the land surface, and subsurface structure, the greater the disruption to the water resource. 

New disturbances often have the most noticeable effects, but they can combine with existing disturbances 

as well. 

The State of Wyoming monitors water quality at the point of discharge. If the discharge of produced 

water from an approved location has sufficient energy to erode the existing channel banks, additional salts 

and sediments may be incorporated into the water column. 

Surface discharge of produced water and grazing should be considered as creating cumulative impacts on 

the water and watershed resources. The additional water source(s) may aid in distribution of livestock and 

reduce concentration of grazing pressures. These same factors can also combine to concentrate grazing in 

areas that do not have the vegetation and/or topography to deal with either continuous overland flow or 

concentrated grazing pressures. This is especially true for areas where water is discharged to ephemeral 

channels and allowed to flow overland. 

The increasing population in the planning area, influenced by the ongoing gas development, would 

increase residential water use. While it is not possible to predict the specific increase in water use due to 

BLM-authorized activities, it should be recognized that an increase in the use of surface and ground 

waters would occur. 

4.19.17 Wildland Fire and Fuels 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on fire management includes the entire planning area. 

Because of noncontinuous fuels, low historic fire incidence, and significant fuel breaks (e.g., state and 

county roads), management activities occurring within the planning area would not be expected to affect 

fire management outside of the planning area for the majority of the planning area. 

4-292 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

However, approximately 150,000 acres (including WSAs and SD/MAs) bordering the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest are considered for WFURB under Alternatives 3 and 4. This could impact portions of the 

forest as well as the planning area. The Bridger-Teton National Forest has approved these boundary areas 

for WFURB, so crossagency management of WFURB can be possible. 

Cumulative impacts would occur as a result of the increased development and recreation activities 

occurring within the planning area. As recreation, mineral development, and other construction activities 

(e.g., power lines, pipelines) increase as a whole over the planning area, so does the potential for wildland 

fire occurrence and the need for suppression-oriented AMR. With increased development and attendant 

infrastructure (e.g., power lines, compressors, pipelines, and fuel tanks) comes a corresponding increase 

in the potential for fire suppression to occur within WUI areas. Suppression activities within WUI areas 

can be more dangerous, time-consuming, and expensive than suppression in undeveloped areas. 

Particularly critical would be the extra caution required for firefighter safety within an active gas field. 

This increased development would also impact the fuels management activities within the oil and gas 

fields. Increasing the amount of oil and gas development would require more WUI/industrial interface 

fuels treatment projects and would tax BLM’s ability to plan, fund, and implement these projects. This 

increased development would also segment the areas impacted to the degree that landscape-scale 

prescribed fire and AMR would be limited. 

Cumulative impacts would occur under Alternatives 1 and 2. Continued suppression-oriented AMR 

wildland fire tactics will keep small wildland fires within the historic averages, but large (100+ acres) 

fires will increase in size as fuel continues to build up in the wildland. This would have a long-term 

substantive impact. 

Cumulative impacts would occur as a result of implementing WFURB under Alternatives 3 and 4. There 

is approximately one fire every other year within this area that could potentially be managed for WFURB. 

Dependent on weather conditions, location, and seasonality, the frequency could be further reduced. Thus, 

a wildland managed as a WFURB may be an occasional event (every 3 to 5 years), which magnifies its 

importance to the ecosystem. The cumulative effects would be those of reintroducing fire into the 

ecosystem and creating a more resilient forested ecosystem. Under Alternative 2, continued AMR 

wildland fire tactics will keep small wildland fires within the historic averages, but large (100+ acre) fires 

will increase in size as fuel continues to build up in the wildland. There could be substantive cumulative 

impacts from WFURB. These would include potentially large acreages of wildland fire on both the 

planning area and the Bridger-Teton National Forest. The reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem, 

thereby making forest stands more resilient to wildland fire, is also a substantive impact. 

Cumulative impacts on fire management are substantive under all alternatives. Cumulative impacts would 

be greatest under Alternative 2 because of anticipated increases in development activities and access and 

limited ability to use wildland fire (both prescribed and natural ignitions) to manage fuel loadings. 

Prescribed fire under Alternative 2 would be used to achieve project goals on limited areas. Under 

Alternative 3, restrictions on development and access would reduce the potential for human-caused 

wildland fires and WUI situations, thereby minimizing potential cumulative impacts on fire management. 

Under Alternatives 3 and 4, there would be substantive impacts because of WFURB use. Additional 

cumulative impacts under these alternatives would result because they direct the use of prescribed fire and 

mechanical treatments for returning vegetative conditions to Condition Class 1 to increase resilience and 

resistance to wildland fires. 

Pinedale RMP 4-293 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

4.19.18 Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

The CIAAs used to analyze potential impacts on wildlife and fisheries vary by species. The CIAAs for 

pronghorn, mule deer, elk, and moose comprise the herd management areas (for each species) that 

intersect the planning area (Maps 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, and 4-15). The CIAA for pronghorn extends into the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem because of their long-distance migration corridor. The CIAA for greater 

sage-grouse includes portions of the Lower Green River and southwest greater sage-grouse local planning 

areas (identified in the WGFD Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan 2003) (Map 4-16). The 

CIAA for all other wildlife comprises the planning area. The CIAA for fisheries covers the same area as 

the CIAA for water quality and watershed resources. It extends outside the planning area, following 

fourth-order watershed (eight-digit HUC) boundaries (Map 4-11). 

Cumulative effects on wildlife and fisheries within the CIAAs would result primarily from surfacedisturbing and other disruptive activities such as mineral development and associated infrastructure, 

rangeland improvements, fences of all kinds, vegetation treatments, geophysical exploration, urban 

expansion and subdivision of private lands, and dispersed recreation. These activities could result in 

short-term and long-term habitat fragmentation and animal displacement. Habitats could become 

unavailable to wildlife because of human disturbance factors (e.g., traffic, noise, livestock grazing 

activities) during sensitive time periods such as winter, birthing, nesting, and early rearing of young. Loss 

of vegetation from development activities would degrade habitat and increase forage competition among 

grazing animals. Livestock grazing practices would further increase cumulative impacts through direct 

competition for forage, water, and space, and by limiting the ability to manage vegetation for fish and 

wildlife needs. These impacts would also reduce the capability to maintain current population objectives. 

Oil and gas development would cause the greatest amount of surface disturbance through construction of 

well pads, roads, pipelines, and other facilities. Reclamation and mitigation efforts would reduce impacts 

on wildlife habitat and fisheries; however, construction and maintenance of roads and well pads and the 

presence of humans would result in long-term or permanent impacts. Cumulative impacts would likely be 

greater in the southern portions of the CIAA where mineral development is more intense, in areas where 

development overlaps with crucial and winter wildlife ranges, and on state and private lands because of 

the lack of protections afforded to natural resources in these areas. Special Status Species, under the ESA 

and Wyoming BLM sensitive species guidance, would be protected on federal lands by site-specific 

mitigation, including exclusion or avoidance of all surface-disturbing activities; however, protection of 

nonfederally listed species on private and state lands may not occur, resulting in potentially significant 

impacts on these species. Specifically, energy development in the Moxa Arch field in the Kemmerer FO 

is expanding, and there is seismic exploration in the Lander FO. As development expands throughout 

southwestern Wyoming, the ability of big game species and sage-grouse to disperse into habitats outside 

of the Upper Green River Valley becomes limited. This may create isolated populations in areas where 

habitats remain intact. 

The degree of impact would depend on the timing of development activities and whether the amount of 

activity within each CIAA outpaces the successful reclamation and revegetation efforts in disturbed areas. 

Because of this pace of development (whether federal mineral, commercial, or private residence), more 

pressure would be put on habitats outside of the development (likely private lands) as wildlife is displaced 

from the disturbances. 

Impacts on wildlife would likely occur under all alternatives because of substantial loss of vital, highvalue habitats. The success of disturbed land reclamation, both short and long term, would determine the 

duration of impacts. Given the constancy of all other stressors, the potential for cumulative impacts would 

be greatest under Alternative 2 because of anticipated increases in development and fewer restrictions on 

such activity on public lands. Under Alternative 3, increased restrictions on mineral development and 

4-294 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

other surface-disturbing activities would reduce the potential for surface disturbance and subsequent 

degradation of wildlife habitat. Alternative 4 provides a middle ground between these two alternatives. 

Crucial winter range and birthing habitat are important areas to the viability of the elk herd. Persistent 

disturbance in elk-sensitive habitats would shift the areas of use and weaken the tendency of the animals 

to return to the disturbed area. If animals return to disturbed habitat, populations could be lower and use 

of the habitat could be unpredictable. Mineral development activities would likely cause displacement of 

animals and selection of alternative habitats and would likely inhibit elk movement between winter ranges 

and birthing areas. Should migration be disrupted and key habitats continue to be degraded over a short 

period of time, it is likely that long-term displacement of elk from these habitats would occur. Depending 

on the rate of forage loss, herd sizes could decrease over time and dependency on elk feedgrounds could 

increase. 

Although there are few published studies on the reaction of pronghorn to disruptive human activities, 

roads, fences, and pipelines are known to fragment habitat and impede or block pronghorn movement. 

The density in which these occur could have a large effect on pronghorn migration and use of habitat. 

Mineral development activities would cause the greatest level of impact on pronghorn through habitat 

fragmentation caused by the proliferation of roads, pipelines, and wells. This would potentially reduce or 

eliminate migration corridors between key habitats and disrupt crucial winter range continuity. There has 

already been a loss of six of the eight migration corridors between the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

and the Green River Basin because of habitat conversion for agriculture, roads, or reservoirs through 

canyons (Berger et al. 2006). 

If an ACEC would not be designated in the Trapper’s Point area, development in this area would impact 

the already bottlenecked migration route of thousands of mule deer and pronghorn that move through the 

area annually. Deer and pronghorn populations from Grand Teton National Park to the Little Colorado 

Desert in the BLM Rock Springs FO would potentially be affected. This area is a historic migration 

corridor for mule deer and pronghorn and a historic corridor for cattle trailing. The wildlife disturbance 

threshold and the result of further surface disturbance and habitat fragmentation regarding these 

populations is unknown. This natural migration corridor averages 2 km in width and narrows to 121 m in 

some bottlenecks by habitat conversion, roads, and reservoirs. The possibility of adaptation of alternative 

routes is low and has not been supported by the collapse of previously existing pronghorn migration 

routes or current research. Analyses of 16 bidirectional spring and autumn migrations have revealed an 

invariant use of the same corridor, as well as an unsuccessful apparent attempt to use an alternate route 

during spring migration. After blockage by a highway and multiple efforts to cross a 3,500-m mountain 

chain, a collared female retraced her course and followed the historic and still-functioning corridor to 

reach summer grounds. Further blockage of this corridor could result in the loss of an entire population 

from a National Park, leaving a conspicuous gap in the function of predator-prey interactions (Berger et 

al. 2006). In regard to Trapper’s Point and other existing or newly discovered migration routes or 

bottlenecks, disturbance threshold and the result of further surface disturbance and habitat fragmentation 

regarding these big game populations is unknown. 

There are few published studies on the reaction of mule deer to roads and/or disruptive human activities; 

however, like elk, mule deer tend to avoid areas of disruptive activity and are more sensitive to activity in 

shrub versus forested habitat. Mineral development activities would cause the greatest level of impact on 

mule deer habitats within the CIAA through direct loss of habitat, animal displacement, disruption of 

migration corridors, and selection of alternative habitats (of which there are few). The displacement of 

mule deer from high-use to low-use areas has the potential to influence survival and reproduction (Sawyer 

et al. 2006). Should the loss of migration corridors take place and the loss of birthing habitat increase over 

the short term, it is possible that long-term displacement of mule deer from these habitats would occur. 

Sawyer et al (2006) further determined that mule deer were not simply moving to alternative habitats in 

Pinedale RMP 4-295 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

substantial numbers when development occurred. These findings might suggest that habitats are already 

saturated to carrying capacity, and that there are actually limited alternative habitats available to support 

displaced animals. Concentrating animals in habitats can decrease over-winter survival and ultimately 

lead to population reductions as discussed by Bartmann et al. (1992), White et al. (1987) and Hobbs 

(1989). 

The majority of cumulative effects on greater sage-grouse habitat within the CIAA would result from 

surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities in the form of direct habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, 

and bird displacement. Many areas leased for oil and gas development are located in areas of greater sagegrouse lek concentration; therefore, related development activities that take place in these areas would 

likely cause long-term displacement of sage-grouse through habitat loss and lek abandonment. This would 

contribute to current population declines, resulting in a potentially significant impact on greater sagegrouse. Seasonal restrictions on mineral development that are applied within a specified distance of leks 

during breeding and nesting time periods would be likely to slow rates of overall habitat loss, lek 

abandonment, and resulting population decline; however, these limitations would not prevent further 

habitat destruction from occurring. Vegetation treatments in the form of prescribed burns could also affect 

greater sage-grouse through removal of large areas of sagebrush, conversion of sagebrush habitats, and an 

increase in invasive species. Provided that the use of vegetation treatments is evaluated carefully before 

implementation, effects of those treatments would not lead to long-term displacement of greater sagegrouse. 

The health of fisheries within the CIAA is directly related to the overall health and functional capabilities 

of riparian resources, which in turn are a reflection of watershed health. Any activities that affect the 

ecological condition of the watershed and its vegetative cover would indirectly affect the aquatic 

environment. It is assumed that any substantial unmitigated disturbances to the soils or changes in 

vegetative cover would have an adverse effect on watershed health and water quality and would therefore 

have an adverse effect on associated fisheries. The degree of impact attributed to any one disturbance or 

series of disturbances is influenced by location within the watershed, time and degree of disturbance, 

existing vegetation, and precipitation. Conventional oil and gas and CBNG development activities would 

be the primary cause of surface disturbance and related impacts on fisheries on public lands in the PFO. 

Surface disturbances result in accelerated erosion and runoff, increasing stream flow and sediment and 

nutrient loads to local channels. Sedimentation of a given channel can impact fisheries by reducing habitat 

complexity, which results in a lower diversity of prey organisms. Increased turbidity also results from 

increased sediment input, which decreases light penetration and inhibits visual predation by fish. Surface 

disturbance near streams that results in substantial removal of riparian vegetation can increase current 

velocity, which puts additional strain on fish and reduces nutrient cycling. In addition to increased 

sediment input, stream bank disturbance can impact fisheries by creating bank instability, which can alter 

flow regimes and destroy pool-riffle formations necessary for fish survival. Increased nutrient loading of 

streams can impact fisheries by increasing primary production above natural levels, which degrades 

habitat and decreases oxygen levels. Surface disturbance and timing restrictions and stipulations afforded 

all streams and riparian areas within the planning area would help to reduce impacts. 

Because stream systems within the planning area are not entirely under BLM management and cross onto 

state and private ownerships, the connectivity of these streams is sometimes incomplete. Thus, the 

metapopulations for fish species such as CRCT are also disconnected. Many times this occurs because of 

irrigation diversions or other such barriers that do not allow for migration between smaller headwater 

streams via the larger streams and rivers. At places some streams would be nearly dewatered. Population 

objectives sometimes reflect these discontinuities, and re-establishment of connectivity is usually a major 

goal. Without this connectivity and with a continuation of additional fragmentation within the entire 

CIAA, populations of many fish species would continue to be threatened. 

4-296 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

Projects that cause water depletions to the Colorado River through use of water for drilling activities 

(typically deep wells and coalbed methane wells) and thus contribute to reduced peak discharges and 

pulse flows, would create effects on downstream species. Fees are paid to the USFWS to offset these 

depletions; the use and success of mitigation that is purchased from these funds is unknown, but is 

believed to be effective. Water depletions reduce the ability of the river system to create and maintain 

important habitats (e.g., pool-riffle formation, side channels, and spawning gravels), limit productivity 

and nutrient supply, alter plant species and diversity, and reduce food supply brought about by high 

spring flows. 

4.19.19 Special Designations and Management Areas 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on SD/MAs includes the entire planning area, the Bridger 

Wilderness, and the Wind River Front SRMA managed by the BLM Rock Springs FO (Map 4-17). These 

areas of special designation are adjacent to the planning area and therefore could be affected by activities 

occurring within it. 

As development of public, private, and state-owned lands continues, the importance of protecting 

SD/MAs would increase. The values of the ACECs and other SD/MAs, including wildlife migration 

routes, sensitive plant habitats, recreational and open space, and archeological and paleontological values 

would increase as development proceeds on surrounding areas. As solitude and primitive recreation 

experiences become rarer, additional people would be drawn to the WSAs and other SD/MAs for their 

open space and undeveloped characteristics. Increased human presence could impact some values of the 

SD/MAs, particularly wildlife values such as migration bottlenecks; but this impact would be less than 

the impact of industrial development in the areas. 

4.20 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF 

RESOURCES

NEPA §102(2)C requires a discussion of any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that 

would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. An irretrievable commitment of a resource is 

one in which the resource or its use is lost for a period of time (e.g., extraction of any locatable mineral 

ore or fluid mineral). An irreversible commitment of a resource is one that cannot be reversed (e.g., the 

extinction of a species or disturbance to protected cultural resources). 

Implementation of the Pinedale RMP would result in surface-disturbing activities, including mineral and 

energy development, dispersed recreation, livestock grazing, and infrastructure development that would 

result in irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources. These surface-disturbing activities would 

result in long-term or permanent alterations to soil, removal of vegetation cover, fragmentation of wildlife 

habitat, and damage to cultural and paleontological resources. Wildlife dependent on the affected habitats 

may be displaced and populations may be reduced as the carrying capacity of the range is reduced. 

Increases in sediment, salinity, and nonpoint source pollution that result from these activities could result 

in degradation of water quality and an irretrievable loss of water utility, aquatic habitats, and aquaticdependent species. However, management prescriptions and mitigation prescribed under the alternatives 

are intended to reduce the magnitude of these impacts by preventing habitat loss in some areas and 

reclaiming soil, vegetation, and habitat resources. Although reclamation of some disturbed sites would 

occur, the level of habitat diversity and quality that existed prior to disturbance would likely not be 

achieved for several decades and may never return to pre-disturbance conditions. This would likely result 

in permanent reductions in wildlife populations and impairment of water quality and vegetation 

communities in some areas. 

Pinedale RMP 4-297 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Final EIS 

An irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable fossil fuels (i.e., oil and gas) would occur from the 

development of wells and subsequent extraction of fluid minerals over the next 20 years. The number of 

additional wells proposed for development within the planning area ranges from 5,300 to 8,724, 

depending on the alternative. 

4.21 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

NEPA §102(2)C requires disclosure of any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should 

the proposed plan be implemented. Unavoidable adverse impacts are those that remain following the 

implementation of mitigation measures or impacts for which there are no mitigation measures. Some 

unavoidable adverse impacts would occur as a result of implementing the Pinedale RMP. Others are a 

result of public use of BLM-managed lands within the planning area. 

Continuing to allow surface-disturbing activities consistent with the BLM multiple-use mandate would 

result in unavoidable adverse impacts. Although these impacts are mitigated to the extent possible, 

unavoidable damage is inevitable. Permanent conversion of vegetation resources to other uses such as 

transportation, recreation, and mineral and energy development reduces the quantity and quality of 

vegetation resources. Energy and mineral development activities on public lands create long-term visual 

intrusions, soil erosion and compaction, habitat degradation and fragmentation, and water quality 

impairment. Portions of the planning area with more intense recreational use would continue to 

experience scarring, increased soil erosion, loss of vegetation, and degradation of water and wildlife 

resources. Although these impacts are unavoidable, they are generally concentrated in areas that are 

already disturbed, which limits the spread of impacts on more remote or less frequented areas. 

Development of the additional oil and gas wells predicted on BLM surface and federal mineral estate, 

potentially quadrupling the number of wells in the planning area, would cause air quality related impacts. 

Under all alternatives, production and release into the atmosphere of HAPs, VOCs, CO, SO2, NOx, and 

PM10 would increase. Although it is not anticipated that the concentrations of these substances would 

increase to the point where an exceedance of the NAAQS or WAAQS would occur, the increases over the 

low historical background concentrations would be noticeable and/or visible to the average person. 

Impacts would persist as long as development continued, unless improved methods for controlling and/or 

treating emissions were developed. These impacts would be apparent throughout the planning area and 

potentially throughout the CIAA for air quality (Map 4-5). 

Because large portions of the crucial big game habitats coincide with leased areas of oil and gas potential, 

impacts on wildlife habitat would be unavoidable. Although oil and gas well sites and their associated 

infrastructure would be mitigated to the extent possible (Appendices 2 and 3) and best management 

practices would be employed (Appendix 5), long-term and possibly permanent habitat degradation and 

displacement of wildlife populations would be unavoidable. In addition, competition is anticipated for 

forage resources among wildlife and livestock. The extent of these impacts would vary by location of 

development activities, season, and drought cycle. 

Inadvertent damage and/or destruction of cultural and paleontological resources from increased visitation 

and surface-disturbing activities would be unavoidable. Although mitigation measures would include 

identification and mitigation of resources prior to surface-disturbing activities, some unanticipated 

discoveries of unknown cultural and paleontological resources would occur. The number of sites 

anticipated to be inadvertently damaged is unknown. 

Conflicts between user types such as recreationists who seek more primitive types of recreation and 

motorized users who share those recreational areas are unavoidable adverse impacts. As recreation 

4-298 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative 

demand increases, recreational use would disperse to other areas of the planning area, which could create 

conflicts with other existing uses of those areas. Recreation use would be displaced from areas of intense 

mineral development, which will increase the extent and frequency of conflict between these 

incompatible user groups in other areas. 

Numerous land use restrictions imposed throughout the planning area to protect sensitive resources and 

other important values would impact the ability of operators, individuals, and groups to use the public 

lands without limitations and result in forgone opportunities to use resources within the planning area. 

Although attempts would be made to minimize these impacts by limiting the level of protection necessary 

to accomplish management objectives and by providing alternative use areas for impacted activities, 

unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. 

4.22 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

NEPA §102(C) requires discussion of the relationship between local, short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of resources. 

Any use of the natural resources within the planning area is likely to adversely impact long-term 

productivity of these natural resources. The short-term uses that would result in the greatest impact on 

long-term productivity include mineral and energy development, dispersed recreation, forest harvest, 

livestock grazing, and infrastructure development. These uses result in surface-disturbing and other 

disruptive activities that remove vegetation, increase soil erosion and compaction, create visual intrusions 

and landscape alterations, increase noise, impair water quality, and degrade and fragment wildlife habitat. 

Although management actions, best management practices, surface use restrictions, and lease stipulations 

are intended to minimize the effect of short-term uses, some impact on long-term productivity of 

resources would occur regardless of management approach. Given this situation, BLM will strive to 

achieve the most effective and practicable balance between short-term uses and long-term productivity 

through science-based and flexible management, application of mitigation measures and BMPs, 

monitoring, continuous evaluation of current management policies and practices, and revision of 

management prescriptions where necessary and feasible. 

Pinedale RMP 4-299