Draft EIS Chapter 1 

CHAPTER 1—PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE

PLANNING EFFORT

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

This draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents the comprehensive analysis of alternatives 

for the planning and management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Rawlins Field Office (RFO) in Wyoming. The BLM RFO administrative area is 

located in southcentral and southeastern Wyoming (see Map 1-1). The RFO includes approximately 11.2 

million acres of land in Albany, Carbon, Laramie, and Sweetwater Counties. Within that area, the RFO 

administers approximately 3.4 million acres of public land surface and mineral estate, 0.1 million acres of 

public land surface where the mineral estate is state and private, and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral 

estate where the surface is privately owned or state owned (see Maps 1-2 and 1-3, and Table 1-1). Map 1-

4 shows the location and names of communities and other major geographic features within the RFO. 

The public lands and federal mineral estate within the Rawlins Resource Management Planning Area 

(RMPPA) are the subject of the planning effort and this associated EIS document. Neither this document 

nor the RFO’s current land use plan applies to lands or minerals within the RMPPA that are administered 

by federal agencies other than BLM, such as the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the 

U.S. Air Force. 

This draft EIS provides analysis of potential management direction for important resource values and 

resource uses within the RMPPA and allocates the use of public lands for multiple uses. The draft EIS 

also provides management direction for the protection of certain resources while allowing for leasing and 

development of mineral resources, livestock grazing, and other activities at appropriate levels. 

1.1.1 Reader’s Guide 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that an EIS be prepared for any federal actions 

that may significantly affect the human environment. The preparation and adoption of a Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) by BLM is such a federal action. This section describes ways to find 

information in, and related to, this document and provides an overview of the EIS process. 

Rawlins RMP 1-1 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS 

Table 1-1. Land and Minerals Ownership and Administrative Jurisdiction Within the

Rawlins RMPPA

Jurisdiction Acres1 

Areas the Rawlins RMP decision will cover: 

A. Federal land/federal minerals2 

B. Federal land/nonfederal minerals

3 

C. Nonfederal land/federal minerals4 

3,425,270 

126,220 

1,247,130 

Total BLM-administered federal land surface to be covered by RMP decisions 3,551,480 

Total BLM-administered federal mineral estate to be covered by RMP decisions 4,672,160 

Areas the Rawlins RMP decisions WILL NOT cover: 

D. FS land/federal minerals

5 

E. USBOR land/federal minerals5 

F. USFWS land/federal minerals

5 

971,990 

32,830 

6,410 

Total BLM-administered federal mineral estate that WILL NOT be covered by RMP 

decisions 1,011,230 

Other lands that WILL NOT be covered by RMP decisions: 

G. Department of Defense land 

H. Private land/private minerals and state lands/state minerals6 6,030 5,309,520 

Total land surface area in the Rawlins RMP planning area (all ownerships)1 11,211,490 1

Because of land surface and mineral ownership overlaps and administrative responsibility overlaps, acreage figures are not 

additive. For the purpose of the Rawlins RMP, where one or more of the mineral resource categories are federally owned, 

the acres are listed as if all minerals in the area were federally owned. Where mixed minerals ownership occurs (for 

example, privately owned oil and gas, overlapping with federally owned coal in the same area), minerals planning and 

management decisions in the RMP will pertain only to the federally owned minerals. 

2

In areas where the federal land surface and federal mineral estate are both administered by the BLM, the RMP will include 

planning and management decisions for both the land surface and the mineral estate. 

3

In areas where the federal land surface is administered by the BLM, and the minerals are privately owned or owned by the 

State of Wyoming or local governments, the RMP will include planning and management decisions for only the BLMadministered federal land surface. Although these surface management decisions may have some effect on the ability to 

manage and develop the nonfederally owned minerals, the RMP planning and management decisions will not pertain to the 

nonfederal mineral estate. At the same time, surface and minerals management actions and development activities 

anticipated in these areas will be taken into account for purposes of cumulative impact analysis in the Rawlins RMP EIS. 

4

In areas where the land surface is privately owned or owned by the State of Wyoming or local governments, and the 

minerals are Federally owned, the RMP will include planning and management decisions for only the BLM-administered 

Federal mineral estate. While the land and resource uses and values on the nonfederal surface will be taken into account 

and will affect development of the Federal mineral planning and management decisions, these decisions will not pertain to 

the state and privately owned land surface. At the same time, surface and minerals management actions and development 

activities anticipated in these areas will be taken into account for purposes of cumulative impact analysis in the Rawlins RMP 

EIS. 

5

In areas where the federal land surface is administered by the United States Forest Service (USFS), the United States 

Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR), or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the federal mineral estate is 

administered by the BLM, the land surface planning and management decisions are the responsibility of these “other” federal 

or state surface management agencies. Any BLM administrative responsibilities within these areas (for example, actions 

concerning the federal mineral estate) are handled case by case and are guided by the other surface management agencies’ 

policies, procedures, and plans. At the same time, surface and minerals management actions and development activities 

anticipated in these areas will be taken into account for purposes of cumulative impact analysis in the Rawlins RMP EIS. 

It is also important to note that, while other BLM responsibilities include surface management of certain federal lands 

withdrawn for purposes of the USBOR, they are carried out in accordance with an interagency agreement between the two 

agencies. Administrative jurisdiction (including land use planning) for these lands lies with the USBOR. 

6

The Rawlins RMP will not include any planning and management decisions for areas where the land surface and minerals 

are both privately owned or owned by the State of Wyoming or local governments. 

1-2 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Chapter 1 

Reader’s Guide To This Document 

Much of the organization of this draft EIS is dictated by federal regulations implementing NEPA. These 

regulations are codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500–1508 (40 CFR 1500– 

1508). This draft EIS contains the following major chapter headings and information: 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for the Planning Effort—Presents an introduction to the draft EIS; the 

purpose and need to which BLM is responding; an overview of the BLM planning process; statutes 

(laws), limitations, and guidelines BLM must adhere to in preparing an RMP; and describes the 

relationship of this draft EIS to other plans. 

Chapter 2, Description of the Alternatives—Describes how the alternatives were developed, 

management guidance common to all alternatives, and alternatives considered but eliminated from further 

consideration. It also presents specific management actions proposed under the alternatives, and a 

comparative summary of the impacts of the alternatives that have been analyzed in detail. 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment—Describes the RMPPA and the existing environmental conditions 

that would be affected by the alternatives. 

Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences—Describes the impacts of the alternatives. This section forms 

the scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of impacts presented in Section 2. This section also 

describes cumulative impacts, any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources, and the 

relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of 

long-term productivity. 

Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination—Describes the overall EIS scoping process and other past 

and planned agency consultation and public involvement activities. A list of agencies, organizations, and 

individuals who were sent the draft EIS is also presented. 

Chapter 6, List of Preparers—Presents the names and qualifications of the persons responsible for 

preparing this draft EIS. 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms—Provides an alphabetized list of abbreviations and acronyms used 

in this draft EIS. 

Glossary—Provides an alphabetized list of definitions of terms used in this draft EIS. 

References—Provides full citation information for all references cited in the document. Most cited 

documents are reasonably available from other public sources such as libraries or the Internet, and many 

of the cited documents are available for public review at the BLM Rawlins Field Office. 

Appendices—Include additional supporting documents that substantiate analysis or provide other 

information directly relevant to the EIS. 

Readers Guide to the EIS Process 

The process for preparing an EIS is determined by the federal regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 

1500–1508). The major steps in the EIS process are described below (see Table 1-2). 

Notice of Intent (NOI)—BLM published an NOI in the Federal Register on February 25, 2002, to 

announce its intention to revise the Rawlins RMP, formerly called the Great Divide RMP. The NOI 

Rawlins RMP 1-3 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS 

explained that the RMP was renamed to be consistent with current organizational structure and naming of 

BLM land use plans in Wyoming. 

Scoping Period—The official 60-day scoping period began February 3, 2003, with the availability of the 

Scoping Notice and the Management Situation Analysis (MSA) on the BLM Rawlins RMP Web site. 

BLM requested public input in identifying resource issues and concerns, management alternatives, or 

other ideas in determining future land use decisions for the RMPPA. The scoping period lasted until 

April 7, 2003. Scoping meetings were held in Rock Springs, Baggs, Rawlins, and Laramie. The scoping 

period, its results, and additional agency and public participation are described in Chapter 5, Coordination 

and Consultation. 

Draft EIS—This document is the draft EIS. The draft EIS considers public and agency comments 

received during the scoping process, provides a description of the alternatives, describes the environment 

that would be affected, and assesses the potential impacts. A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the draft 

EIS was published in the Federal Register. 

Comment Period and Public Hearings—The public and federal, state, and local government agencies 

may review and comment on the draft EIS during a 90-day comment period. BLM will hold a public 

hearing to receive comments from the public. Opportunities for public involvement are further described 

in Chapter 5, Coordination and Consultation. 

Final EIS—The purpose of the final EIS (EIS) is for BLM to assess, consider, and respond to public and 

agency comments received on the draft EIS. An NOA will be published in the Federal Register when the 

Proposed RMP final EIS is available. A 30-day protest period will follow the release of the Proposed 

RMP final EIS. 

Record of Decision (ROD)—The ROD is a separate and concise public record that clearly identifies and 

describes the chosen RMP and links BLM’s decision to the analysis presented in the EIS. The ROD 

addresses how environmental impacts and other factors were considered in the decision-making process. 

Table 1-2. The EIS Process 

EIS PROCESS 

Notice of Intent 

▼

Scoping Period 

▼

Draft EIS 

▼

Comment Period and Public Hearings 

▼

Final EIS 

▼

Record of Decision 

This planning area wide final EIS provides a comprehensive evaluation of BLM’s potential management 

actions for the broad administration of the public land within the Rawlins RMPPA and the natural 

resources found on those lands. A comprehensive final EIS that includes all of BLM’s management 

programs is needed because management actions share a common timing or geography with other 

1-4 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Chapter 1 

management actions, thereby creating potential conflict among various resource values and management 

actions. 

This planning area wide final EIS also allows for tiering (see also 40 CFR 1505.28) of subsequent activity 

or project-specific EISs or Environmental Assessments (EAs) that are conducted within the RMPPA. 

That is, subsequent lower-level EISs or EAs will reference and adopt the relevant information and goals 

from this broader planning area-wide EIS as formal NEPA documentation, thereby avoiding duplication 

of effort and reducing costs associated with completing future NEPA analyses. 

1.1.2 Agency Roles and Relationships 

This section identifies roles and responsibilities of both lead and cooperating government agencies in the 

EIS process. 

BLM 

The BLM is the lead agency for the EIS process. The lead agency takes primary responsibility for 

preparing the EIS as well as requesting the participation of each cooperating agency. According to 

federal regulations, the lead agency is to request the participation of each cooperating agency in the EIS 

process at the earliest possible time. Also, the lead agency must use the environmental analysis and 

proposals of cooperating agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise, to the maximum extent 

possible consistent with its responsibility as lead agency. 

Cooperating Agencies 

Upon request of the lead agency, any other federal agency that has jurisdiction by law will be a 

cooperating agency (also called a cooperator). In addition, any other federal agency that has special 

expertise with respect to any environmental issue that should be addressed in the EIS may be a 

cooperating agency upon request of the lead agency. An agency may also request the lead agency to 

designate it a cooperating agency. 

The concept of cooperators has been extended from federal agencies to include state and local 

government agencies in recent years. This inclusion of state and local government agencies as 

cooperating agencies is consistent with BLM’s planning approach and policies. Any designated federal, 

state, or local government agency that becomes a cooperator is required to sign a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) as to its specific roles and responsibilities. 

The primary role of the cooperating agencies is to provide input during the EIS process on issues for 

which they have special expertise or jurisdiction. They also serve as reviewers of draft information and 

give overall advice on the EIS process. Cooperators meet with the lead agency periodically throughout 

the EIS process to discuss EIS issues as a group. Cooperating agencies are expected to participate in the 

EIS process at the earliest possible time, including participation in the scoping process. Staffs from 

cooperating agencies are available to enhance the interdisciplinary capability of the lead agency by 

providing needed information throughout the NEPA process. 

The following agencies with jurisdiction, special expertise, or interest in the Rawlins RMP development 

process have agreed to participate in the EIS process as cooperating agencies: 

• Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District 

• Medicine Bow Conservation District 

• Little Snake River Conservation District 

Rawlins RMP 1-5 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS 

• Sweetwater County Conservation District 

• U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

• State of Wyoming and its agencies 

• Carbon County 

• Sweetwater County 

• Albany County. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A NEW RAWLINS RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

1.2.1 Background 

An RMP guides management actions on public lands covered by the plan. Land use plan decisions 

establish goals and objectives for resource management, the measures needed to achieve goals and 

objectives, and parameters for using BLM lands or resources. They identify lands that are open or 

available for certain uses, including any applicable restrictions, and lands that are closed to certain uses. 

Land use plan decisions ordinarily are made on a broad scale and customarily guide subsequent sitespecific implementation decisions. When there are competing resource uses and values in the same area, 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires that BLM manage the public lands and 

their various resources so that they are used in the combination that will best meet the present and future 

needs of the American people. Land use plan decisions are made according to the procedures in BLM’s 

planning regulations in 43 CFR 1600. 

An EIS serves as the action-forcing device to ensure that the policies and goals of NEPA are infused into 

the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government. The EIS provides full and fair discussion 

of significant environmental impacts and informs decision-makers and the public of the reasonable 

alternatives, which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human 

environment. An EIS is prepared according to the regulations for implementing NEPA in 40 CFR 1500– 

1508. 

The BLM prepares an EIS in conjunction with an RMP to plan actions and make decisions affecting 

public lands in the planning area. 

The Great Divide RMP, approved by the Wyoming BLM State Director on November 8, 1990, currently 

covers the public lands included in the Rawlins RMP. The Great Divide RMP provides guidance and 

direction for management of BLM-administered public land surface and federal mineral estate. 

1.2.2 Purpose 

The purpose of the Rawlins RMP Revision and EIS is to replace the existing Great Divide RMP, and to 

address the deficiencies described in the Great Divide RMP Evaluation (see Section 1.2.3). The Rawlins 

RMP will provide the overall management direction for the public lands and resources administered by 

the RFO. Portions of the Great Divide RMP determined to be adequate will likely be unchanged in the 

plan revision. 

The Great Divide RMP includes five Wilderness Study Areas (WSA)—Encampment River Canyon, 

Prospect Mountain, Bennett Mountains, Adobe Town, and Ferris Mountains; four Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC)—Jep Canyon, Como Bluff, Shamrock Hills, and Sand Hills; three Wild 

Horse Herd Management Areas (HMA)—Adobe Town, Stewart Creek, and Lost Creek; and three Special 

Recreation Management Areas (SRMA)—Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, North Platte River, 

1-6 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Chapter 1 

and Shirley Mountain Caves. Major land uses include mineral development, wildlife habitat, wild horse 

use, livestock grazing, and recreation. 

1.2.3 Need 

BLM completed an evaluation of the Great Divide RMP on July 5, 2001. The BLM determined that the 

RMP was deficient in the following areas as a result of changing conditions and demands on the area’s 

resources: 

• Although air quality decisions are adequate (i.e., comply with state law and standards and 

guidelines), there is a need for a regionwideregion wide analysis. 

• Environmental justice (Executive Order 12898) has not been addressed. 

• Old Classification and Multiple Use Act classifications and withdrawals are being used to protect 

various resource values. 

• Management direction for utility and transportation systems and communication sites may be 

inadequate. 

• Management direction for land tenure adjustment may be inadequate. 

• Standards for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997) must be incorporated into all programs. 

• The vegetation resource is treated as a subset of livestock grazing. 

• Invasive-plant decisions are not included in the RMP. 

• Fluid mineral development levels are approaching Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) 

scenarios established for analysis purposes in the existing RMP. 

• Protection standards for paleontological resources are lacking. 

• Recreation uses and demands are increasing. 

• New ACEC designations may be needed, and existing ones may be outdated. 

• Visual Resource Management (VRM) classifications are outdated. There are inconsistencies 

between the Rock Springs Field Office and the Rawlins Field Office. The designation for Adobe 

Town WSA is inconsistent between the Rock Springs Field Office and the Rawlins Field Office. 

• Federal and state requirements for water quality warrant additional attention as the RMP is 

implemented and updated. 

• Wild and Scenic River evaluations have not been conducted in the RMPPA. 

• New information on cultural resources has been prepared. 

Based on the plan evaluation findings, along with new information and changed circumstances since 

adoption of the Great Divide RMP (see Chapter 3, Affected Environment), the Rawlins Field Office will 

replace the Great Divide RMP/EIS with the new Rawlins RMP/EIS. 

The evaluation also noted that many of the decisions of the Great Divide RMP had already been 

implemented. In some cases, implementation of previous decisions resulted in the establishment of valid 

existing rights or other obligations that will be an important consideration in the preparation of the 

Rawlins RMP 1-7 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS 

Rawlins RMP. For example, many of the oil and gas resources in the planning area have been leased. 

The presence of these valid existing rights will affect the management choices available for BLM to 

consider in developing the Rawlins RMP. Alternatives described in the RMPPA will address potential 

stipulations attached to new leases, consider the availability of lands for future oil and gas leasing, and 

describe mitigation measures to be considered in approving Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs). 

1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE BLM PLANNING PROCESS 

As provided by the FLPMA of 1976, the BLM has the responsibility to plan for and manage “public 

lands.” As defined by the act, “public lands” are those federally owned lands, and any interest in lands 

(e.g., federally owned mineral estate), that are administered by the BLM. 

The process for the development, approval, maintenance, and amendment or revision of RMPs was 

initiated under the authority of Section 202(f) of the FLPMA and Section 202(c) of the NEPA of 1969. 

BLM planning regulations in Title 43 of the CFR, Part 1600 (43 CFR 1600), and the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations in 40 CFR 1500 guide the process. 

The preplanning phase of the BLM planning process consists of (1) compiling and reviewing the current 

laws, regulations, policies, Executive Orders, and directives pertaining to the RMPPA; and (2) developing 

any needed State Director’s guidance specific to the planning effort and the RMPPA. 

BLM decision-making relevant to land use planning includes the following: 

• Management planning. The highest level of decision-making specific to land and resource use 

is in the management plan. The RMP is BLM’s management plan. RMPs generally make land 

use allocations and provide general future management direction for managing specific areas of 

land and provide the framework for management of all natural resources under BLM authority. 

Plan decisions are based on a public NEPA disclosure process, usually including the development 

of an EIS. 

• Activity planning. For BLM, mid-level decisions are provided in activity or implementation 

plans. These plans encompass more detailed management decisions than RMPs. Activity 

planning addresses management of specific programs and usually selects and applies best 

management practices (BMPs) to meet land use plan objectives. Decisions that cover major (e.g., 

often geographically widespread) proposals lead to coordinated activity plans that cover all 

programs in an integrated manner. A program-oriented activity plan such as a “habitat 

management plan” is another example of an activity plan. Activity plans can be assessed through 

either an EIS or an EA level of NEPA analysis. 

• Project decisions. For BLM, individual projects proposed in a specific location are analyzed for 

localized or site-specific effects. For example, an oil and gas proposal is evaluated based on the 

Application for Permit to Drill (APD) process, with a NEPA document presenting impact analysis 

for the proposed well(s). A documented project decision allows the wells to be drilled and 

completed with site-specific mitigation. 

As the highest level in the BLM planning process, the RMP will prescribe the allocation of and general 

future management direction for the resources and land uses of the BLM-administered public lands in the 

entire RMPPA. In turn, the RMP also guides lower tiers of the planning process; the activity plans and 

project- or site-specific plans. 

1-8 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Chapter 1 

1.3.1 Planning Issues 

Planning issues are determined from demands, concerns, conflicts, or problems involving the use or 

management of public lands and resources. These issues are usually expressed in terms of the effects that 

some land and resource uses have on other land and resource uses or resource values. The following 

planning issues have been identified through public scoping and information gathered in analyzing the 

existing management situation in the RMPPA. These issues are based on the input of BLM personnel, the 

public, and interagency consultation. 

Issue 1: Development of Energy Resources and Minerals-Related Issues 

Special attention is needed to address energy resource development (i.e., oil and gas, coal, solar, and wind 

energy) and related transportation network conflicts with other land and resource uses and values. 

Principal considerations include disruptive activities and human presence in big game (i.e., elk, deer, 

antelope, moose, and bighorn sheep) habitat, big game crucial habitat (crucial winter range and birthing 

areas), and other important wildlife species habitats (i.e., Greater sage-grouse, plovers, raptors, and fish) 

and the effects of disruptive activities on recreation values, forage uses, air quality, sensitive vegetation 

types, and sensitive watersheds. Areas need to be identified where surface disturbing and other disruptive 

activities (e.g., mineral exploration and development activities, rights-of-way construction activities) are 

suitable or should be restricted or avoided. 

Issue 2: Special Management Designations 

There are unique areas or sensitive lands and resources in the RMPPA that meet the criteria for protection 

and management under special management designations. There are five WSAs—Encampment River 

Canyon, Prospect Mountain, Bennett Mountains, Adobe Town, and Ferris Mountains. Four areas already 

designated as ACECs (Como Bluff, Sand Hills, Jep Canyon, and Shamrock Hills Raptor Concentration 

Area) contain unique resources warranting special management attention. Three of these ACECs (Como 

Bluff, Jep Canyon, and Shamrock Hills) are within the checkerboard land pattern. Effective management 

of these ACECs will be extremely difficult without full landowner cooperation, which presently does not 

exist. Three SRMAs (Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, North Platte River, and Shirley Mountain 

Caves) contain recreation values that require special management attention. Three HMAs (Adobe Town, 

Stewart Creek, and Lost Creek) are designated for wild horses. Three designated National Natural 

Landmarks (NNL) (Big Hollow, Sand Creek, and Como Bluff) containing unique landscape values 

require special management attention. Additional special management areas have been proposed in areas 

containing sensitive lands and/or resources. There are also concerns that special management area 

designations may result in too many restrictions on the use of public lands. 

Issue 3: Resource Accessibility 

Resource accessibility relates to the idea that the value or usability of some resources is enhanced by 

improved accessibility by the public. To be used, resources must be accessible (legally and physically) 

and manageable (the ability to apply constraints or requirements). Some areas in the RMPPA are isolated 

and difficult to access (i.e., legal and physical access) and manage. Land disposals and acquisitions (fee 

and easements) could provide improved access and manageability of public lands. 

Issue 4: Wildland-Urban Interface 

New demands are being placed on public lands because of growth in and around some cities, towns, rural 

developments, and subdivisions in the RMPPA. Growth has changed the way communities relate to 

surrounding public lands and has changed the communities’ expectations. The basic problem is providing 

Rawlins RMP 1-9 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS 

for public land management along with increased demands for public land and resources. Principal 

considerations include providing for air and water quality, preventing the depletion of water resources, 

reducing accelerated erosion in critical watersheds, and preventing fragmentation of critical wildlife 

habitat. Considerations also include providing for development patterns and transportation and utility 

corridor planning, and demands for open space and recreational uses, land tenure adjustment, and 

wildland fire and fuels management. 

Issue 5: Special Status Species Management 

Attention is needed to address management of special status species (threatened and endangered, 

proposed, candidate, and sensitive plant and animal species) and the interrelationships of these species 

with other resource uses and activities. Principal considerations include management of species habitat to 

ensure continued use by these species. Areas where other resource activities may conflict with special 

status species and their habitat requirements need to be identified. 

Issue 6: Water Quality 

Federal and state requirements for addressing water quality of waterbodies located within the RMPPA 

will warrant additional attention as the RMP is implemented and updated. Land management decisions 

made by the RFO during the planning effort regarding contributing watersheds can impact water bodies 

listed on the State of Wyoming’s list of threatened or impaired water bodies (303d list), watersheds used 

for municipal water supplies, and watersheds that contribute to sources of water used for agricultural, 

industrial, and other purposes. 

Increased interest in the production of natural gas in the RMPPA, particularly from coal formations, 

requires BLM to consider methods to dispose of the water produced during oil and gas exploration and 

development. Legal changes to the status of depletions in the Colorado and Platte Drainages must be 

addressed in addition to rule changes for salt loading in the Colorado River Basin. In general, surfacedisturbing activities from BLM-approved activities are designed to reduce non-point pollution sources 

throughout the RMPPA and should be addressed in relation to their impact on water quality. 

Issue 7: Vegetation Management 

There are conflicting demands for consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of the vegetation resources in 

the RMPPA. The basic problem is maintaining resource values and nonconsumptive uses while allowing 

for consumptive uses. Resource values include vegetative cover, watershed protection, maintenance and 

enhancement of riparian areas, soil stabilization, maintenance and enhancement of wildlife habitat 

(particularly big game crucial winter range and habitat for candidate, sensitive, proposed, or threatened 

and endangered wildlife and vegetation species). Vegetative consumptive uses include livestock, 

wildlife, and wild horse grazing; forest management; off-road vehicle use; vegetation removal by mineral 

development; rights-of-way construction; and surface disturbing and other disruptive activities. 

Issue 8: Recreation, Cultural Resources, and Paleontological Resource 

Management 

Certain resources and areas need protection while others need to be considered for more public and 

recreation uses. Off-highway vehicle use can conflict with other land and resource uses and can cause 

damage to resources, including wildlife and watershed values and other recreation values. Principal 

considerations include providing for suitable and sufficient recreation uses and facilities (both dispersed 

and commercial), visual resource management, off-highway vehicle road and trail designations, 

management of paleontological resources, and management of cultural and historical resources (of 

1-10 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Chapter 1 

particular concern is the need for protection of historic transportation resources such as the Overland 

Trail, the Cherokee Trail, and expansion era roads, and Native American respected places). The 

viewshed along these trails and Native American respected places are also an issue. 

1.3.2 Planning Criteria 

General Planning Criteria 

Planning criteria are the constraints or guidelines that are developed to direct the planning effort for 

preparation of the Rawlins RMP draft EIS. The planning criteria serve the following purposes: 

• To ensure that the planning effort is focused on the issues, follows and incorporates legal 

requirements, addresses management of all public land resources and land uses in the RMPPA, 

and that preparation is accomplished efficiently 

• To identify the scope and parameters of the planning effort for the decision-maker, the 

interdisciplinary planning team, and the public 

• To inform the public of what should and should not be expected from the planning effort. This 

includes identification of any planning issues that are not ready for decision-making and that will 

be addressed only through subsequent activity or implementation planning efforts or in approving 

public land and resource use authorizations (e.g., livestock grazing allotment management plans, 

wildlife habitat management plans, other coordinated activity planning, watershed management 

plans, processing applications for permits for mineral exploration, rights-of-way). 

Planning criteria are based on standards prescribed by laws and regulations; guidance provided by the 

BLM Wyoming State Director; the results of consultation and coordination with the public and with other 

agencies, governmental entities, and Native American tribes; analysis of information pertinent to the 

RMPPA; public input; and professional judgment. The general planning criteria have been developed to 

help focus the preparation of planning and management alternatives and the analysis of their impacts, and 

to guide selection of the preferred alternative for the draft EIS. The degree to which each of the planning 

criterions, identified below, is used in the planning process will depend on the specific resource presence, 

accessibility, and demand. Additional planning criteria may be identified as the planning process 

proceeds. 

Planning Criteria for Specific Situations 

Criteria for Use of Standard Mitigation Guidelines 

The Wyoming BLM has developed standard and best management practices for use in determining the 

types and levels of mitigation needed to protect important resources from actions involving 

surface-disturbing and other human-presence disturbance or disruptive activities. These practices are 

used in the planning/NEPA process for (1) developing management options and alternatives and 

analyzing their impacts; and (2) as part of the planning criteria for developing the options and alternatives 

for determining mitigation requirements. The Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines for 

Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities are detailed in Appendix 1, which also contains further 

information on how the practices are used in the planning/NEPA process. 

Criteria for the Coal Screening/Planning Process 

The previously conducted coal planning/screening process including application of the coal unsuitability 

criteria (43 CFR 3461) will be reviewed and revised, as needed, for the planning effort. The NOI to 

Rawlins RMP 1-11 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS 

conduct a planning review and modification of the Great Divide RMP included a call for any available 

coal and other resource information for the RMPPA. The planning review and coal screening process 

will be consistent with the Federal Coal Management Program, policies, environmental integrity, national 

energy needs, and related demands. Conducting the environmental analysis and developing the EIS will 

serve as a mode for public input to the coal screening/planning process. The coal screening process will 

be conducted for the Rawlins RMP planning area to determine if existing RMP coal planning decisions 

are still appropriate in light of changes to the federal coal regulations and changes in resource conditions 

since the Great Divide RMP was approved (BLM 1990a) (see Appendix 2). After identifying areas of 

coal occurrence and coal with any degree of development potential in the RMPPA, the remainder of the 

coal screening/planning process will be conducted on those federal coal areas with development potential 

to determine what federal coal is acceptable for further consideration for leasing. 

Note: Upon consideration of the potential for development of coal resources within the RMPPA during 

the 20-year life of the plan, it was determined that, with the exception of Carbon Basin, leasing of coal 

resources is unlikely during the 20-year planning period. Therefore, only the first two steps of the coal 

screening process (identification of areas with coal development potential and the application of coal 

unsuitability criteria) will be completed during land use planning for the RMPPA. Completion of the coal 

screening process will occur upon receipt of a lease-by-application. 

Criteria for Hydrocarbon Potential 

To aid in the planning review, criteria will be developed for leasing and development of 

hydrocarbon-based minerals (oil and gas). Using available geologic information, reports of past 

production, and information from the minerals industry, areas of high, moderate, and low potential for the 

occurrence and development of hydrocarbons in the RMPPA will be identified. Estimates of reasonably 

foreseeable oil and gas exploration and development activity will be developed from analysis of geology, 

past activity, and production. These estimates will be used to aid in the analysis of environmental 

consequences. Because they are general, these occurrence and development potential classifications and 

production estimates are appropriate for planning purposes, but they are not appropriate for, nor are they 

intended to predict, future specific activity or the specific locations of new discoveries. 

Criteria for Locatable Minerals Potential 

Criteria will be developed for location and development of locatable mineral entry to extract minerals 

such as gold, diamonds, uranium, and bentonite. Areas of high, moderate, and low occurrence and 

development potential will be determined to facilitate analysis of the effects that the variety of other land 

and resource uses and management actions would have on locatable minerals development and vice versa. 

This determination will be based only on a representative analysis by inference and does not imply that 

there may or may not be undiscovered locatable minerals of economic value in the RMPPA. 

Criteria for Withdrawals and Classifications 

Under sections 202(d) and 204(1) of FLPMA, any classification or withdrawal on BLM administered 

public land is subject to periodic review to determine whether it is serving its intended purpose and is still 

needed. These reviews would be initiated upon signing of the ROD. During the implementation phase 

the need for new withdrawals may also be identified. Where the need is identified for new withdrawals 

that overlap existing withdrawals that should be terminated, the new withdrawals would be put in place 

before terminating the old withdrawal on the same areas. The criteria for conducting these reviews in the 

course of the implementation phase are presented below. 

1-12 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Chapter 1 

For purposes of providing an adequate comparison of impacts, for the planning effort, all existing 

withdrawals and classifications and their segregative effects will be assumed to continue in effect in the 

description of the continuation of existing management direction. 

Withdrawals Under Other Agency Jurisdiction. The withdrawal review requirement of FLPMA has 

not yet been completed on those federal lands withdrawn for purposes of other federal agencies (i.e., 

those under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense or Bureau of Reclamation). For purposes of 

this planning effort, it must be assumed that these withdrawals will remain in effect, and that the planning 

and management authorities for these withdrawn lands will remain with those agencies. It is anticipated 

that the existing withdrawals (approximately 73,000 acres), with the exception of approximately 3,205 

acres of USBOR-administered withdrawn lands, would be retained throughout the life of the plan. 

However, a withdrawal review program would be initiated to determine if those withdrawals would be 

retained, revoked or modified. Thus, the planning effort will not include consideration of any planning or 

management decisions for either the federal land surface or federal minerals within these withdrawn 

areas, except for the 3,205 acres of USBOR- administered lands with withdrawals likely to be revoked 

during the life of the Rawlins RMP. These lands will be considered in conducting the environmental 

analysis for the planning effort in terms of cumulative impacts and in terms of how they may be affected 

by management in the RMPPA or vice versa. 

Withdrawals and Classifications Under BLM Jurisdiction. The review of withdrawals and 

classifications on any lands under BLM jurisdiction may result in a determination that withdrawals or 

classifications are no longer serving their intended purposes and should be terminated (either all or in 

part). This review will include consideration of whether new withdrawals or classifications, for other 

purposes, are needed and should be put into place before terminating old withdrawals on the same areas. 

Criteria for Wilderness 

There are five WSAs (Adobe Town, Ferris Mountains, Prospect Mountain, Bennett Mountains, and 

Encampment River Canyon) on BLM-administered public lands in the RMPPA. These WSAs were 

established in accordance with the requirements of Section 603(c) and 202 of FLPMA. These WSAs will 

continue to be managed under the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review 

(IMP) until Congress either designates all or portions of the WSAs as wilderness or releases the lands 

from further wilderness consideration. 

Criteria for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

The relevance and importance criteria for ACEC designation, found in BLM Manual 1613, will be 

applied to BLM-administered public lands in the RMPPA to determine if any areas have the potential for 

ACEC designation. An ACEC designation alone does not change the allowed uses of public lands 

involved (FLPMA-Sec.201[a] and 43 CFR 1601.0-5a). Protective measures for ACECs are not applied or 

required simply because of the designation, rather, the nature of the values, resources, or natural hazards 

they contain are the basis for determining the appropriate types and levels of management needed. The 

only automatic requirement for an ACEC designation is that a “plan of operations” must be submitted for 

any degree of mining claim development in the area (43 CFR 3809.1-4). 

Criteria for Wild and Scenic Rivers 

In the course of conducting the analysis of the management situation (MSA document) for the planning 

effort, BLM-administered public land along waterways in the RMPPA has been reviewed, to determine 

the land’s eligibility and suitability to be considered for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. In preparing and analyzing options and alternatives for the planning effort, interim management 

Rawlins RMP 1-13 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS 

prescriptions have been developed for public land waterway segments determined to be suitable for 

further consideration. The Encampment River, within the Encampment River WSA, was the only 

waterway segment determined to be suitable for further consideration (see Appendix 3). 

Criteria for Wild Horses 

There are three wild horse HMAs (Adobe Town, Lost Creek, and Stewart Creek) on BLM-administered 

public land within the RMPPA. These HMAs were established in accordance with the requirements of 

Section 3 of the Wild, Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, as amended. These HMAs will continue to be 

managed under existing policy and guidance that emphasizes multiple-use management. 

Three Herd Areas (HA) in the RMPPA were not established as HMAs. Significant amounts of private 

land and lack of landowner consent to allow wild horses to occupy private property precluded 

consideration of these HAs as HMAs. 

The current appropriate management levels (AML) for wild horses were based on a 1994 evaluation of 

wild horse HMAs in the RMPPA. The evaluation analyzed and interpreted extensive monitoring data 

collected over a number of years. It is assumed that any wild horses within the RMPPA that are above 

the current AMLs are “excess,” in the meaning of the Act, and are subject to removal. 

Removal methods, transportation of wild horses, handling/preparation, adoption, and long-term care 

arrangements are beyond the scope of this analysis and will not be addressed in this planning review. 

1.4 RELEVANT STATUTES, LIMITATIONS, AND GUIDELINES 

The following provides a description of the authorities that apply to the selection and implementation of 

the management actions for the RMP. This is not an inclusive list of statutes, limitations, and guidelines. 

Additional laws, regulations, and policies are identified in the various appendices for specific resource 

programs. 

1.4.1 Environmental Policy 

NEPA (42 USC 4321, et seq.) requires the preparation of EISs for federal projects that may have a 

significant effect on the environment. It requires systematic, interdisciplinary planning to ensure the 

integrated use of natural and social sciences and environmental design arts in making decisions about 

major federal actions that may have a significant effect on the environment. The procedures required 

under NEPA are implemented through the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1500. 

Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (Executive Order [EO] 12088) requires that federal 

agencies comply with applicable pollution control standards. 

Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (EO 11514, as amended by EO 11991) establishes 

the policy for federal agencies to provide leadership in environmental protection and enhancement. 

1.4.2 Land Use and Natural Resources Management 

FLPMA, as amended (43 USC 1701, et seq.), provides for public lands to be generally retained in federal 

ownership for periodic and systematic inventory of the public lands and their resources; for a review of 

existing withdrawals and classifications; for establishing comprehensive rules and regulations for 

administering public lands statutes; for multiple-use management on a sustained yield basis; for 

1-14 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Chapter 1 

protection of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, 

and archaeological values; for receiving fair market value for the use of the public lands and their 

resources; for establishing uniform procedures for any disposal, acquisition, or exchange; for protecting 

ACEC; for recognizing the nation’s need for domestic sources of mineral, food, timber, and fiber from the 

public lands, including implementation of the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970; and for payments 

to compensate states and local governments for burdens created as a result of the immunity of federal 

lands from state and local taxation. The general land management regulations are provided in 43 CFR 

2000, Sub-chapter B. 

The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 USC 22, et seq.), provides for locating and patenting 

mining claims where a discovery has been made for locatable minerals on public lands in specified states. 

Regulations for staking and maintenance of claims on BLM-administered lands are listed in 43 CFR 

3800. 

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 USC 181, et seq.), provides for the leasing of deposits 

of coal, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil, oil shale, native asphalt, solid and semisolid bitumen, 

bituminous rock or gas, and lands containing such deposits owned by the United States, including those in 

national forests but excluding those acquired under other acts subsequent to February 25, 1920, and those 

lands within the national petroleum and oil shale reserves. Regulations for onshore oil and gas leasing are 

provided in 43 CFR 3100. 

The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (30 USC 201, et seq.) requires competitive leasing of 

coal on public lands and mandates a broad spectrum of coal operations requirements for lease 

management. Coal leasing regulations for BLM-administered lands are provided in 43 CFR 3400. 

The Materials Act of 1947, as amended (30 USC 601–604, et seq.), provides for the sale of common 

variety materials for personal, commercial, or industrial uses and for free use for local, state, and federal 

governmental entities. The sales of mineral materials are controlled by the regulations listed in 43 CFR 

3600. 

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended (43 USC 315), provides authorization to the Secretary of 

the Interior to establish grazing districts from any part of the public domain of the United States 

(exclusive of Alaska) which, in the Secretary’s opinion, are chiefly valuable for grazing and raising 

forage crops; to regulate and administer grazing use of all public lands; and to improve the public 

rangelands. Regulations for grazing permits and leases are provided in 43 CFR 4100. 

The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 USC 1901, et seq.) provides for the improvement 

of range conditions on public rangelands, research on wild horse and burro population dynamics, and 

other range management practices. 

The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7 USC 2814), provides for establishment and 

funding of an undesirable plant management program, completion and implementation of cooperative 

agreements with state agencies, and establishment of integrated management systems to control 

undesirable plant species. 

Executive Order (E.O.) 11987 (Exotic Organisms), signed May 24, 1977, requires federal agencies, to the 

extent permitted by law, to restrict the introduction of exotic species into the natural ecosystems on lands 

and waters owned or leased by the United States; to encourage states, local governments, and private 

citizens to prevent the introduction of exotic species into natural ecosystems of the United States; to 

restrict the importation and introduction of exotic species into any natural U.S. ecosystems as a result of 

activities they undertake, fund, or authorize; and to restrict the use of federal funds, programs, or 

Rawlins RMP 1-15 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS 

authorities to export native species for introduction into ecosystems outside the United States where they 

do not occur naturally. 

E.O.13112 (Invasive Species), signed on February 3, 1999, prevents the introduction of invasive species 

and provides for their control, as well as to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts 

that invasive species cause. Under this Executive Order, federal agencies whose actions may affect the 

status of invasive species shall (1) identify such actions, (2) use relevant programs and authorities to 

prevent, control, monitor, and research such species, and (3) not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that 

it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United 

States or elsewhere. 

The Wild, Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 provides for the management, protection, and 

control of wild horses and burros on public lands and authorizes “adoption” of wild horses and burros by 

private individuals. Regulations applicable to wild horse and burro management on BLM-administered 

lands are provided in 43 CFR 4700. 

E.O. 12548 provides for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public 

rangelands and directs that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC 1131, et seq.) provides for the designation and preservation of 

wilderness areas. 

1.4.3 Air Quality 

The Clean Air Act of 1990, as amended (42 USC 7401, 7642), requires BLM to protect air quality, 

maintain federal- and state-designated air quality standards, and abide by the requirements of the state 

implementation plans. 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations, Chapters 1 to 11, specify the requirements for air 

permitting and monitoring to implement Clean Air Act and state ambient air quality standards. 

1.4.4 Water Quality 

The Clean Water Act of 1987, as amended (33 USC 1251), establishes objectives to restore and maintain 

the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s water. The act also requires permits for 

point source discharges to navigable waters of the United States and the protection of wetlands and 

includes monitoring and research provisions for protection of ambient water quality. 

Wyoming Water Quality Regulations implement permitting and monitoring requirements for the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, operation of injection wells, groundwater protection 

requirements, prevention and response requirements for spills, and salinity standards and criteria for the 

Colorado River Basin. 

Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990) requires federal agencies to take action to minimize the destruction, 

loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands. 

Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988) provides for the restoration and preservation of national and 

beneficial floodplain values, and enhancement of the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying 

out programs affecting land use. 

1-16 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Chapter 1 

1.4.5 Cultural Resources 

The Historic Sites Act (16 USC 461) declares national policy to identify and preserve historic sites, 

buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, thereby providing a foundation for the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470), expands protection of historic 

and archaeological properties to include those of national, state, and local significance. It also directs 

federal agencies to consider the effects of proposed actions on properties eligible for or included in the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (16 USC 470a, 470cc, 470ee), 

requires permits for the excavation or removal of federally administered archaeological resources, 

encourages increased cooperation among federal agencies and private individuals, provides stringent 

criminal and civil penalties for violations, and requires federal agencies to identify important resources 

vulnerable to looting and to develop a tracking system for violations. 

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 provides a process for federal 

agencies to return certain Native American cultural items (e.g., human remains, funerary objects, sacred 

objects, and objects of cultural patrimony) to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Native American 

tribes. 

Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (Executive Order 11593) directs federal 

agencies to locate, inventory, nominate, and protect federally owned cultural resources eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places and to ensure that their plans and programs contribute to preservation 

and enhancement of nonfederally owned resources. 

The National Trails System Act of 1968, as amended (16 USC 1241–1249), establishes a national trails 

system and requires that federal rights in abandoned railroads be retained for trail or recreation purposes, 

or sold with the receipts to be deposited in the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

1.4.6 Hazardous Materials 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as 

amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (42 USC 9601–9673), provides 

for liability, risk assessment, compensation, emergency response, and cleanup (including the cleanup of 

inactive sites) for hazardous substances. The act requires federal agencies to report sites where hazardous 

wastes are or have been stored, treated, or disposed and requires responsible parties, including federal 

agencies, to clean up releases of hazardous substances. 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Federal Facility Compliance 

Act of 1992 (42 USC 6901–6992), authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to manage, by 

regulation, hazardous wastes on active disposal operations. The Act waives sovereign immunity for 

federal agencies with respect to all federal, state, and local solid and hazardous waste laws and 

regulations. Federal agencies are subject to civil and administrative penalties for violations and to cost 

assessments for the administration of the enforcement. 

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (42 USC 11001–11050) requires 

the private sector and federal, state, local, and tribal governments to inventory chemicals and chemical 

products, to report those in excess of threshold planning quantities, to inventory emergency response 

Rawlins RMP 1-17 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS 

equipment, to provide annual reports and support to local and state emergency response organizations, 

and to maintain a liaison with the local and state emergency response organizations and the public. 

1.4.7 Wildlife 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 USC 1531, et seq.), directs federal agencies 

to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize threatened and endangered species, and that through their 

authority they help bring about the recovery of such species. 

The Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 USC 668), amended in 1962 to include the golden eagle, 

prohibits the taking or possession of and commerce in bald and golden eagles, with limited exceptions. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 USC 661 et seq.) provides that whenever the waters or 

channel of a body of water are modified by a department or agency of the United States, the department 

or agency first will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and with the head of the agency 

exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the state where construction will occur, with a 

view to the conservation of wildlife resources. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 USC 742l) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and 

the Secretary of Commerce to assist in training of state fish and wildlife enforcement personnel, to 

cooperate with other federal or state agencies for enforcement of fish and wildlife laws, and to use 

appropriations to pay for rewards and undercover operations. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, as amended, (16 USC 2901-2911, commonly known as the 

Nongame Act) encourages states to develop conservation plans for nongame fish and wildlife of 

ecological, educational, aesthetic, cultural, recreational, economic or scientific value. The states may be 

reimbursed for a percentage of the costs of developing, revising, or implementing conservation plans 

approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Amendments adopted in 1988 and 1989 also direct the 

Secretary to undertake certain activities to research and conserve migratory nongame birds. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC 703-711) manages and protects migratory bird species 

through consultation with state and local governments and protection of land and water resources 

necessary for the conservation of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, killing, or possessing migratory 

birds is unlawful. 

The Sikes Act of 1960 (16 USC 670a-670o), as amended, Public Law 86-797, provides for cooperation 

by the Departments of the Interior and Defense with state agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources on military reservations throughout the United States. Public 

Law 93-452, signed in 1974, authorized conservation and rehabilitation programs on BLM lands. Public 

Law 97-396, approved in 1982, provided for the inclusion of endangered plants in conservation programs 

developed for BLM lands. It also defined “cooperative agreements” with states and clarified section 209 

concerning purchases and contracts for property and services from states. 

1.5 RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER PLANS 

BLM land use plans and amendments must be consistent with officially approved or adopted resourcerelated plans of Native American tribes, other federal agencies, and state and local governments to the 

maximum extent practical, given that BLM land use plans must also be consistent with the purposes, 

policies, and programs of FLPMA and other federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands (43 

CFR 1610.3-2 [a]). 

1-18 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Chapter 1 

If these other entities do not have officially approved or adopted resource-related plans, BLM land use 

plans must, to the maximum extent practical, be consistent with their officially approved and adopted 

resource-related policies and programs. This consistency will be accomplished as long as BLM land use 

plans are consistent with the policies, programs, and provisions of public land laws and regulations (43 

CFR 1610.3-2 [b]). 

This draft EIS with its associated descriptions of planning alternatives is being distributed to other federal 

agencies, state and local governments, and Native American tribes for the opportunity for them to identify 

where specific inconsistencies may exist, and to suggest ways to resolve them. 

Rawlins RMP 1-19